THE  J.  PAUL  GETTY  MUSEUM  LIBRARY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/davidOOunse 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


fl&jtasinjirt 

^ettesj^^y^-ittpnofltaplis 

Among  the  artists  to  be  considered  during  the  current,  1906, 
Volume  may  be  mentioned,  Sodoma,  Constable,  Bouguereau, 
Goya,  and  Ingres.  The  numbers  of 4 Masters  in  Art  ’ which  have 
already  appeared  in  1906  are  : 

part  73,  January stuart 

Part  74,  FEBRUARY DAVID 

PART  75,  THE  ISSUE  FOR 

01  a r c Jj 

WILL  TREA  T OF 

Biu&lin 


NUMBERS  ISSUED  IN  PREVIOUS  VOLUMES 
OF  ‘MASTERS  IN  ART  * 


VOL.  1. 

Part  i,  VAN  DYCK 
Part  2,  TITIAN 
Part  3,  VELASQUEZ 
Part  4,  HOLBEIN 
Part  5,  BOTTICELLI 
Part  6,R  EM  BRANDT 
Part  7,  REYNOLDS 
Part  8,  MILLET 
Part  9,  GIO.  BELLINI 
Part  10,  MURILLO 
Part  i i,  HALS 
Part  12,  RAPHAEL 

* Sculpt ur 

VOL.  3. 


VOL.  2. 

Part  13,  RUBENS 
Part  14,  DA  VINCI 
Part  15,  DURER 
Part  16,  MICHELANGELO* 
Part  17,  MI  CHELANGELOf 
Part  18,  COROT 
Part  19,  BURNE-JONES 
Part  20,  TER  BORCH 
Part  21,  DELLA  ROBBIA 
Part  22,  DEL  SARTO 
Part  23,  GAINSBOROUGH 
Part  24,  CORREGGIO 
f Painting 

VOL.  4. 


Part 

Part 

Part 

Part 

Part 

Part 

Part 

Part 

Part 

Part 

Part 

Part 


25,  PHIDIAS 

26,  PERUGINO 

27,  HOLBEIN  g 

28,  TINTORETTO 

29,  P.  dkHOOCH 

30,  NATTIER 

31,  PAUL  POT  TER 

32,  GIOTTO 

33,  PRAXITELES 

34,  HOGARTH 

35,  TURNER 

36,  LUINI 

g Drawing. 

VOL.  5. 


Part  37. 
Part  38 
Part  39. 
Part  40. 
Part  41. 
Part  42. 
Part  43. 
Part  44 
Part  45. 
Part  46 
Part  47 
Pari  r 
- * F 1 


Part  47, 
Part  50, 
Part  51, 
Part  52, 
Part  $3> 
Part  54, 
Part  5$, 
Part  56, 
Part  57, 
Part  58, 
Part  59, 
Part  60, 


BARTOLOMMEO 

GREUZE 

DURER* 

LOTTO 

LANDSEER 

VERMEER 

PINTORICCHIO 

THE  VAN  EYCKS 

MKISSON1ER 

B A R Y E 

VERONESE 

COPLEY 

• Engraving  1 


Part  61, 
Part  62, 
Part  63, 
Part  64. 
Part  65, 
Part  66, 
Part  67, 
Part  68, 
Part  69, 
Part  70, 
Part  71, 
Part  72, 


ROMNEY 
, FRA  ANGELICO 
, WATTEAU 
RAP  HA  El  ' 

DON  A 'I'EL LO 
GERARD  DOU 
CAR  P ACCIO 
ROSA  BONHEUR 
1 - 1 I DO  R EN1 
P.  drCH  AVANNES 
, G I O R G I O N E 
ROSSETTI 
cos 

VOL.  6. 

WATTS 

PALMA  VECCHIO 
VIGEE  LE  BRUN 
, MANTEGNA 
C HARDIN 
BENOZZO 
JAN  STEEN 
MEMLINC 
CLAUDE 
VFR  ROCCHIO 
RAEBURN 
FILIPPO  LIPPI 


ALL  THE  ABOVE  NAMED  ISSUES 
ARE  CONSTANTLY  KEPT  IN  STOCK 

Prices  on  and  after  January  1 , 1906  : Single  number*  of 
back  volume*,  20  cent*  each.  Single  number*  of  the  current  1906 
volume,  l 5 cent*  each.  Bound  volume*  1,2,  3,4,  and  6.  con  tam- 
ing t he  part*  li*tcd  above,  bound  in  brown  buckram,  with  gilt 
•tamp*  and  gilt  top,  Jt  j . 75  eachj  in  green  half  morocco,  gilt 
stamp*  and  gilt  top,  54-M  each. 


LETTERS  # 
LETTERING 

AN  Illustrated  Treatise  by  Frank  Chou- 

J.  teau  Brown,  containing  two  hundred 
and  ten  Examples.  A complete  and  varied 
collection  of  Alphabets  of  Standard  and  Mod- 
ern Forms,  so  arranged  as  to  be  most  practi- 
cally and  conveniently  useful  to  Designers, 
Architects,  Craftsmen,  and  all  who  have  to 
draw  letter-forms. 

WHAT  THOSE  WHO  USE  IT  HAVE 
TO  SAY 

I consider  the  work  very  good,  and  far  ahead  of  any- 
thing of  its  kind  that  I have  seen  before. 

James  F.  Rudy,  W.  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

It  is  very  well  adapted  to  my  line  of  work,  and  is 
used  for  general  office  lettering.  It  has  many  commend- 
able features. 

Walter  H.  W hitlock,  Architect,  Binghamton,  N.Y. 

It  is  comprehensive  and  at  the  same  time  concise,  and 
well  adapted  as  a reference  book.  I find  it  the  most 
complete  book  on  the  subject  that  I have  examined. 

Mary  Ketcham, 

Inst.  College  of  Fine  Arts,  Syracuse  Univ. 

The  very  best  I have  seen.  I have  handled  many, 
both  Foreign  and  Domestic,  but  never  found  one  that 
gives  so  much  good  information  and  usefulness  for  the 
price  of  $2.00.  Bernhard  Benson, 

Art  Industrial  Works,  Jamestown,  N.  Y. 

I have  used  the  work  as  a reference  book  when  de- 
signing the  lettering  for  bronze  tablets  of  every  descrip- 
tion, and  find  the  method  of  constructing  the  Roman 
letters  very  satisfactory.  A.  M.  Long,  Chicago,  111. 

I find  it  a great  help  to  me  in  my  work.  The  most 
valuable  part  in  the  book  is  the  Roman  capital  letters, 
also  the  construction  of  Roman  small  letters  and  the 
spacing  of  Roman  capitals. 

Joseph  Olsey,  Marble  and  Granite  Worker. 

It  is  the  best  book  I have  seen  on  the  subject.  I 
wished  it  especially  for  the  Gothic  and  Black  Letter 
Alphabets,  and  consider  them  the  best  things  in  it,  es- 
pecially Mr.  Goodhue’s  Alphabet. 

Miss  Ruth  S.  Brooke,  Gambier,  O. 

The  most  complete  of  any  treatise  on  letters  and 
lettering  I have  ever  seen.  The  artist  who  wishes  to 
make  letter  designing  a study,  to  become  proficient, 
cannot  well  afford  to  be  without  it. 

C.  J.  Boyd,  McCunc,  Kan. 

In  my  work  of  designing  I find  myself  constantly 
referring  to  it  for  standard  forms.  I believe  that  any 
one  who  is  called  upon  to  letter  will  find  it  to  be  of 
lasting  value  in  saving  time  and  getting  results. 

Walter  L.  Burt,  K1  Paso,  Tex. 

PRICE,  $2.oo,  POST-PAID. 

MONEY  BACK  IF 

NOT  SATISFACTORY 


Bates  & Guild  Company,  Boston 


In  answering  advertisements,  please  mention  Masti  rs  in  Art 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


“IT  HAS  TAUGHT  ME  ALL  THAT  A TEACHER  COULD  HAVE  TAUGHT — HOW 
TO  BEGIN  RIGHT,  HOW  TO  AVOID  DIFFICULTIES,  AND  THE 
‘TRICKS  OF  THE  TRADE.”' 

iprn  Braxotng 

CHARLES  D.  MAGINNIS 

nly  practice  will  make  an  accomplished  pen- 
draughtsman;  but  this  little  treatise  teaches 
whatever  can  be  taught  of  the  art ; namely, 
how  to  practise,  what  “style”  is,  and  how  to 
attain  it,  what  pens,  inks,  and  papers  have  been  found 
most  serviceable,  how  to  use  line  and  hatch,  how  to 
produce  textures  and  to  represent  various  surfaces,  val- 
ues and  colors,  how  to  depict  and  treat  details,  — in  a 
word,  imparts  a knowledge  of  all  the  ways,  means,  and 
processes  that  experience  has  proved  useful.  The  key- 
note of  the  book  is  practicality.  Each  of  the  72  illus- 
trations is  a specific  example  of  some  important 
method.  It  is  written  interestingly  and  clearly.  With 
this  treatise  at  his  elbow  the  draughtsman  can  make 
most  valuable  use  of  his  spare  minutes. 

Price,  $1.00,  Postpaid 

THE  BOOK  MEASURES  7^  x 5 INCHES,  CONTAINS  130  PAGES  AND  72  ILLUS- 
TRATIONS, IS  PRINTED  ON  HEAVY  PAPER,  AND  BOUND  IN  GRAY  CLOTH. 

THIRD  EDITION. 


BATES  & GUILD  COMPANY,  PUBLISHERS 

42  CHAUNCY  STREET,  BOSTON,  MASS. 


In  answering  advertisements,  please  mention  Masters  in  Art 


FRENCH  SCHOOL 


MAHTKKH  IN  AMT  IM.ATK  I 


l l'»  ) 


DA  V ID 

T>:  ' IIOHHIMi  Mm  NT  HT.  IIKKN  AIIH 
I'  AI.A*  K III  V KI(HA I I.I.KH 


ioroo 


in  IN  A I* A It 


THE  OA  TH  OF  THE  HOHATTI 


M A HTKIIH  IN  A l«T  I'l.ATF:  III 

i If  IIMJN)  Ci  4 C l. 

| .-I 


I > A V 1 1) 

I'flltTK  A IT  ill'  MO.NSIM  I!  H f'.H  l/.l  AT 


l.ill  \ III  . I1  A It  I H 


MAHTFKH  IN  AMT  l»LATK  IV 

Cl  AC't 

I -.1  ] 


^-OTOOI 


DA  VII) 

VOHTI1AIT  DF  MADAM  K HI-  1(1/1  \ T \.\D  llF.lt  ('.1111.11 
LODV  MIC,  I*  A It  IS 


THE  S A HI  N E W DM  EN 
LOU  V HE  PA  HIS 


" 


MAHTKHH  I N AMT 

^••OTOON  A f M «f  MAUI,  f 


l Sfll 


l)A  VIII 

POHTMAIT  OK  I'OPK  P1DK  VII. 
I«OU  V M K,  I'A  It  18 


PORTRAIT  OF  MADAM  E RECAM  I ER 
LOUVRE,  PARIS 


MA0TKMH  IN  A H I 


HI. All-  VIII 


l» A V I I ) 

OK  III  r.  M A KUl'IHI 
«»K  I II  K • MM  | I |IK  | 


lutor  4 


I'OHTK  A IT 

r.Ol.I.H  liMN 


M'OIIV  I I.I.IKIIH 
I III  N N K.  I*  \ II  IS 


MAHTKHH  IN  A IIT  IMiATK  IX 
H »r  •RAUft,  Cl  <M»*T  4 dl. 

[«ll) 


I » A V I 1 1 


f»iOTOQR«r- 


MICIIKI.  ('.KIIAKIi  A.VII  HIS  I AMII.T 
UUMKUM  «»K  |,K  MANS 


3 


PORTRAIT  OF  1 ) A V I IJ  I IT  Iir.MSET.F  LOUTM,  PARIS 

This  portrait  of  David  by  himself,  now  in  the  Louvre,  Paris,  is  a sketch,  but 
so  full  of  character  and  individuality  that  we  feel  no  lack  of  finish  in  its  execution. 
The  painter  wears  a long,  loosely  fitting  gray  coat  with  red  collar  and  cuffs  and  a 
carelessly  knotted  white  cravat.  In  one  hand  he  holds  a brush  and  in  the  other  his 
palette.  The  figure  is  the  size  of  life  and  is  painted  on  canvas.  A description  of 
David’s  personal  appearance  is  given  in  the  biographical  sketch  which  follows. 

[ 64] 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


acciurs-?iotu5 


3a^iitv 


BORN  1 7 48:  DIED  1825 

FRENCH  SCHOOL 


JACQUES-LOUIS  DAVID  (pronounced  Dah'veed)  was  born  in  Paris  on 
August  30,  1748.  When  he  was  nine  years  old  his  father  was  killed  in  a 
duel,  and  he  was  left  to  the  guardianship  of  his  mother  and  two  uncles. 
The  talent  for  drawing  which  the  boy  evinced  very  early  in  life  decided  his 
relatives  that  architecture  was  the  profession  he  should  adopt,  but  David  him- 
self was  determined  to  become  a painter,  and  held  so  tenaciously  to  this  pur- 
pose that  he  was  allowed  to  have  his  way.  Application  was  accordingly  made 
to  the  celebrated  artist  Boucher  to  take  him  into  his  studio.  But  Boucher,  who 
was  then  growing  old,  felt  unwilling  to  undertake  his  instruction,  and  recom- 
mended him  instead  to  Joseph  Marie  Vien,  a painter  of  growing  influence  and 
repute  who  had  lately  returned  from  Rome,  where  a study  of  the  antique  had 
lent  a certain  severity  to  his  style  wholly  lacking  in  the  light  and  decorative 
manner  of  painting  of  Boucher  and  his  followers. 

Vien  was  struck  by  the  ability  shown  in  David’s  drawings  and  agreed  to  ad- 
mit him  to  his  studio.  There  the  young  man  worked  diligently  and  pro- 
gressed rapidly.  Through  the  influence  of  a relative,  Sedaine,  then  secretary 
of  the  Academy  of  Architecture,  he  obtained  a lodging  in  the  Louvre,  where 
he  made  his  first  independent  attempts  at  painting.  When  twenty-two  he 
determined  to  compete  for  the  Grand  Prize  of  Rome,  a sort  of  traveling  fel- 
lowship entitling  its  holder  to  a residence  of  some  years  in  Italy.  Repeated 
failures  to  win  this  much-coveted  prize  were  deeply  mortifying  to  David’s 
proud,  sensitive  nature,  and  finally,  convinced  that  he  was  the  object  of  un- 
just persecution,  he  decided  to  end  his  existence  by  starvation.  Locking  him- 
self into  his  room,  he  remained  for  three  days  without  food  or  drink,  brooding 
over  his  disappointment,  and  it  was  only  with  great  difficulty  that  the  friends 
who  found  him  there,  pale  and  emaciated,  could  persuade  him  to  renounce 
his  intention. 

This  incident  seems  to  have  brought  David  into  notice,  and  through  the 
efforts  of  the  architect  Le  Doux  he  was  engaged  by  Mile.  Guimard,  a famous 
opera-dancer  of  that  day,  to  complete  the  rococo  decorations  begun  by  1'  rago- 
nard  in  her  house  in  Paris.  His  work  evidently  gave  satisfaction,  for  besides 


[65] 


24 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


generously  recompensing  the  young  artist,  Mile.  Guimard  commissioned  him 
to  paint  her  portrait. 

In  1774  David  again  entered  the  competition  for  the  Prize  of  Rome.  This 
time  the  picture  he  submitted  to  the  judges,  ‘Antiochus  and  Stratonice,’  a 
mediocre  work,  vivid  in  color  and  affected  in  composition,  was  awarded  the 
prize,  and  in  the  following  year  he  accompanied  his  master,  Vien,  who  had 
been  appointed  director  of  the  French  Academy  in  Rome,  to  Italy. 

David  was  at  that  time  twenty-seven  years  old.  He  is  described  as  tall  and 
strongly  built.  His  face,  in  which  energy  and  will  were  indicated  rather  than 
genius,  was  somewhat  disfigured  by  a deformity  of  the  upper  jaw  caused  by 
an  accidental  blow  from  a stone  received  when  a child.  This  disfigurement  be- 
came more  pronounced  as  he  grew  older,  and  increased  a natural  difficulty  in 
his  speech.  His  character  was  still  undeveloped.  The  vehemence  and  intensity 
of  his  nature,  his  domineering  spirit,  were  as  yet  dormant,  and  in  the  young 
student  not  fully  emancipated  from  the  tenets  and  prejudices  of  the  rococo 
school  of  eighteenth-century  painting  in  France,  it  is  difficult  to  see  the  future 
despotic  leader,  “the  great  high  priest  of  classicism,”  who,  so  soon  to  become 
penetrated  with  veneration  for  the  antique,  was  destined  to  head  the  movement 
that  revolutionized  painting  in  France. 

But  David’s  conversion  was  not  immediate.  Not  at  first  did  the  works  of 
the  greatest  masters  appeal  to  what  he  himself  signalized  as  his  “coarse  Gallic 
taste.”  The  sight  of  Correggio’s  achievements  in  Parma  filled  him  with  en- 
thusiasm, it  is  true,  but  for  a time  he  chose  to  apply  himself  to  copying  the 
works  of  Valentin,  a French  follower  of  Caravaggio  and  Ribera.  He  could 
not  long,  however,  escape  the  great  neo-antique  movement  of  which  Rome 
was  the  center.  The  theories  of  Lessing,  the  paintings  of  Mengs,  the  publica- 
tions of  Winckelmann,  aided  by  the  discoveries  then  being  made  in  Pompeii 
and  Herculaneum,  all  tending  as  they  did  towards  a revival  of  classic  art,  had 
their  effect  upon  his  mind  and  his  practice.  He  filled  his  sketch-books  with 
studies  of  the  bas-reliefs  on  Trajan’s  column;  beauty  of  line  and  simplicity  in 
composition  assumed  more  and  more  importance  in  his  eyes;  little  by  little  the 
traditions  of  the  rococo  school  were  forgotten  or  laid  aside,  and  in  the  austerity 
of  such  works  as  ‘Hector,’  an  academic  figure  now  in  the  Museum  of  Mont- 
pellier, in  a composition  entitled  ‘The  Death  of  Patroclus,’  and  in  a large  can- 
vas painted  somewhat  in  the  style  of  the  Bolognese  school,  representing  ‘St. 
Roch  interceding  with  the  Virgin  for  the  Plague-stricken,’  now  in  Marseilles, 
we  see  how  widely  David  had  departed  from  the  codes  of  the  popular  French 
school.  In  two  important  works  that  soon  followed,  ‘ Belisarius  asking  Alms,’ 
now  in  the  Lille  Museum,  and  ‘Andromache  weeping  over  the  Body  of  Hec- 
tor,’ both  based  upon  a study  of  the  antique,  a complete  departure  from  his 
early  traditions  is  apparent. 

Before  the  exhibition  at  the  Salon  of  1781  of  his  ‘Belisarius,  David,  after 
five  years  of  study  in  Rome,  had  returned  to  Paris,  where  a short  time  after- 
wards he  was  made  an  academician  and  assigned  a lodging  and  a studio  in  the 
Louvre.  Two  years  later  occurred  his  marriage  with  Mile.  Marguerite  Char- 
lotte Pecoul,  whose  father  was  architect  and  superintendent  of  buildings  to 

[66] 


DAVID 


25 


the  king.  M.  Pecoul  was  not  only  rich,  but  generous,  and  upon  finding  that 
David  was  desirous  of  returning  to  Rome  to  complete  in  more  congenial  sur- 
roundings a large  picture  commissioned  by  the  king,  Louis  xvi.,  the  subject 
of  which  was  suggested  by  Corneille’s  tragedy  ‘ Les  Horaces,’  he  willingly  fur- 
nished means  for  the  journey  to  Italy;  and  in  1784  David,  accompanied  by 
his  wife  and  by  three  of  his  pupils,  found  himself  once  more  in  Rome. 

All  his  thoughts  and  time  were  now  given  to  the  completion  of  his  picture, 
‘The  Oath  of  the  Horatii,’  which  was  finished  at  the  end  of  eleven  months.  In 
Rome  it  met  with  an  immediate  success.  Princes,  cardinals,  artists,  archaeolo- 
gists, and  men  of  letters  crowded  to  David’s  studio  to  see  and  admire.  This 
enthusiastic  reception  was  repeated  in  Paris,  when  in  1785  the  great  canvas 
was  exhibited  at  the  Salon.  The  cold,  austere  qualities  of  this  famous  picture, 
its  harsh  coloring,  and  the  theatrical  and  studied  attitudes  of  the  personages 
represented  render  it  difficult  for  us  to-day  to  realize  the  intense  feeling  its  ap- 
pearance aroused  in  Paris.  What  little  adverse  criticism  it  provoked  only 
served  to  increase  its  fame.  The  subject  appealed  to  every  zealous  Republican, 
and  David  was  felt  to  be  “the  man  after  the  heart  of  the  age.” 

The  ‘Oath  of  the  Horatii’  was  soon  followed  by  ‘The  Death  of  Socrates,’ 
which  achieved  an  almost  equal  success,  and  by  ‘Lictors  bringing  to  Brutus 
the  Bodies  of  his  Sons.’  Because  of  the  revolutionary  spirit  expressed  in  this 
last,  an  attempt  was  made  to  prevent  its  exhibition,  but  the  public,  seeing  in  it 
an  allegory  of  the  incorruptible  justice  of  republicanism,  insisted  upon  its  be- 
ing shown. 

David’s  triumph  was  complete.  The  recognized  leader  of  a new  school 
based  upon  a study  of  Greek  and  Roman  models,  the  regenerator  of  French 
painting,  his  influence  was  felt  not  only  in  art,  but  in  the  dress  and  fashions  of 
the  period.  In  emulation  of  the  classic  severity  of  costume  portrayed  by  him 
in  his  pictures,  the  voluminous  and  ruffled  skirts  and  laced  corsets  worn  by 
ladies  of  fashion  were  thrown  aside,  and  the  loose  flowing  robes  and  simple 
girdles  of  Roman  matrons  adopted.  Flair-powder  was  discarded  and  a classic 
arrangement  of  the  hair  became  the  vogue.  Even  in  furniture  the  fashion 
changed,  and  in  place  of  the  highly  ornamented  chairs  and  tables  of  Louis 
Quinze,  the  severe  simplicity  of  the  antique  became  popular.  David,  indeed, 
reigned  supreme.  His  studio  in  the  Louvre,  furnished  with  austere  but  elegant 
simplicity,  was  the  resort  of  a large  and  increasing  number  of  pupils,  and  was 
visited  by  all  the  men  and  women  prominent  in  France  in  that  day. 

In  1789  the  disagreements  which  for  some  time  past  had  been  steadily  in- 
creasing among  the  members  of  the  Academy  of  Painting,  culminated  in  the 
secession  of  those  who  had  sought  for  a revision  of  its  statutes,  on  the  ground 
that  all  members  were  entitled  to  equal  rights,  and  that  the  Salons  should  be 
open  to  all  for  the  exhibition  of  their  works.  David,  who  had  no  sympathy 
with  the  conservative  views  of  many  of  his  brother  academicians,  and  who 
despised  the  methods  of  instruction  which  then  prevailed  in  the  Academy 
schools,  was  proclaimed  president  of  the  seceding  faction.  All  this  served  to 
increase  his  fame,  and  he  was  regarded  as  the  champion  of  liberty  in  the  do- 
main of  art. 

[«7] 


26 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


Between  1789  ar*d  1 792  he  painted  some  of  Ins  finest  portraits — a branch 
of  art  in  which  he  always  excelled,  and  on  which  his  fame  as  a technician  rests 
more  surely  to-day  than  on  his  large  and  dreary  subject-pictures. 

At  the  outbreak  of  the  French  Revolution  David  was  over  forty  years  old 
and  at  the  full  maturity  of  his  powers.  When  it  was  decided  by  the  National 
Assembly  to  commemorate  in  painting  the  famous  oath  taken  on  June  20, 
1789,  in  the  Tennis  Court  at  Versailles,  by  the  members  of  that  body  not  to 
separate  until  “the  constitution  of  the  kingdom  had  been  established  and  con- 
firmed on  solid  foundations,”  David,  the  painter  of  the  ‘Floratii’  and  of ‘Bru- 
tus,’ was  chosen  to  portray  the  scene.  This  picture,  ‘Le  Serment  du  Jeu  de 
Paume’  (d  he  Oath  in  the  Tennis  Court),  was  never  completed,  but  the  pre- 
paratory study  for  it,  exhibited  at  the  Salon  of  1791,  still  exists. 

An  ardent  Republican,  David  became  a member  of  the  famous  Jacobin 
Club  (so-called  because  its  headquarters  were  in  the  Jacobin  convent  in  Paris), 
made  up  of  those  whose  views  were  most  radically  opposed  to  the  government. 
In  September,  1792,  he  was  elected  a deputy  to  the  National  Convention  and 
took  his  seat  among  the  “ Montagnards,”  as  the  more  advanced  members 
were  called.  The  following  June  he  was  appointed  secretary  of  the  Conven- 
tion, and  not  many  months  later  became  a member  of  the  terrible  “Committee 
of  Public  Safety,”  and  was  among  those  members  of  the  Convention  who,  in 
January,  1793,  voted  for  the  death  of  the  king,  Louis  xvi. 

Not  gifted  as  an  orator,  and  handicapped  moreover  by  a hesitation  in  his 
speech,  David  rarely  addressed  the  meeting  of  the  Convention,  giving  expres- 
sion to  his  feelings,  when  any  question  of  great  political  importance  arose,  by 
vehement  exclamations  or  by  terse  phrases  full  of  force.  But  his  brush,  more 
eloquent  than  his  tongue,  was  always  at  the  service  of  the  cause  he  held  dear, 
and  as  the  appointed  organizer  of  all  public  fetes  and  ceremonies  of  the  Revo- 
lution, his  rule  was  a despotic  one.  In  recognition  of  his  services  the  Conven- 
tion elected  him  for  a brief  period  to  its  presidency.  The  “Reign  of  Terror” 
was  then  at  its  height. 

Early  in  1793  had  occurred  the  assassination  of  Lepelletier  de  Saint- 
Fargeau,  one  of  the  deputies  who  had  voted  for  Louis’  death.  The  body  was 
publicly  exhibited,  and  David  with  realistic  force  painted  a picture  of  the 
murdered  man  on  his  death-bed,  presenting  it  to  the  Convention  to  be  hung 
in  their  chamber  as  the  portrait  of  “the  first  martyr  of  liberty.”  Six  months 
after  this,  Marat,  “the  man  of  terror,”  fell  a victim  to  the  knife  of  Charlotte 
Corday.  The  excitement  caused  by  this  event  was  intense.  When  the  news 
was  brought  to  the  Convention  one  of  the  deputies  cried  out,  “David,  where 
are  you  ? You  have  transmitted  to  posterity  the  image  of  Lepelletier  dying 
for  his  country;  one  more  picture  remains  for  you  to  paint!”  And  in  the 
breathless  silence  that  followed  this  impassioned  appeal  David  responded, 
“And  I will  do  it.”  Not  many  months  later  he  finished  his  marvelous  painting 
— now  in  the  Brussels  Museum — of  Marat  dead  in  his  bath,  stabbed  to  the 
heart  by  the  young  girl  who  risked  all  in  her  attempt  to  free  France  from  the 
monstrous  deeds  of  this  so-called  “friend  of  the  people.” 

When  Robespierre,  the  dictator  before  whom  all  France  had  bowed,  fell 

[68] 


DAVID 


27 


from  power  and  met  death  on  the  scaffold,  David,  his  friend  and  admirer, 
himself  narrowly  escaped  the  guillotine.  Thrown  into  prison,  it  was  five 
months  before  he  was  liberated,  and  then  only  to  be  re-arrested  on  numerous 
charges.  The  Convention,  however,  before  disbanding,  voted  a general  am- 
nesty, and  in  1795  he  regained  his  freedom.  During  his  days  of  suffering  one 
great  happiness  had  been  his:  his  wife,  who,  with  her  two  daughters,  had  left 
him  at  the  time  of  his  political  prominence,  alienated  by  the  violence  of  his 
revolutionary  views,  returned  to  him  upon  learning  of  his  imprisonment,  ex- 
erted every  effort  to  save  him  from  his  threatened  fate,  and  ever  afterwards 
remained  constant  in  her  love  and  devotion. 

When  the  Institute  of  France  was  founded,  in  1795,  David  was  elected  one 
of  the  forty-eight  original  members.  From  now  on  he  took  no  active  part  in 
politics.  The  Directory  succeeded  the  Convention,  and  he  was  among  the 
members  of  that  body  who  retired  to  private  life.  His  time  was  now  wholly 
devoted  to  his  art  and  to  his  pupils,  among  whom  were  many  sculptors  as  well 
as  painters  who  became  famous  in  after  years — numbering  in  all,  it  has  been 
estimated,  upwards  of  four  hundred. 

The  friendship  extended  to  David  by  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  elected  First 
Consul  in  1799,  went  far  towards  effacing  from  the  public  mind  the  rec- 
ollection of  his  political  career,  and  once  more  his  studio  became  the  resort  of 
all  the  great  people  of  the  day.  Napoleon  himself  was  a frequent  visitor,  and 
lost  no  opportunity  of  showing  the  painter  special  marks  of  favor.  David  in 
his  turn  was  completely  fascinated  by  the  personality  of  the  man  who  had  be- 
come the  nation’s  hero,  and  yielded  in  all  things  to  his  wishes,  even  departing 
from  his  classic  style  of  painting  to  adopt  a form  of  art  more  pleasing  to  the 
ideas  of  Napoleon. 

Upon  Bonaparte’s  being  proclaimed  emperor,  David,  who  had  already 
been  made  a member  of  the  Legion  of  Honor  and  was  soon  to  become  one  of 
its  officers,  was  named  first  painter  to  the  imperial  court  and  commissioned 
to  execute  four  great  Napoleonic  pictures:  ‘The  Coronation  of  Napoleon  and 
Josephine;’  ‘The  Distribution  of  the  Standards;’  ‘The  Enthronement  of 
Their  Majesties;’  and  ‘The  Entrance  of  the  Emperor  and  Empress  into  the 
Hotel  de  Ville.’  The  first  two  of  these  scenes  alone  were  completed,  and  in 
the  first  David  may  be  said  to  have  reached  the  culmination  of  his  powers. 

But  although  still  the  leader  in  that  classic  school  of  painting  which  in 
France  had  for  the  time  superseded  all  other  manner  of  expression  in  art, 
David  was  not  without  enemies.  Many  of  his  colleagues  in  the  Institute  re- 
garded him  with  disfavor,  and,  weary  of  the  restrictions  imposed  upon  them 
by  his  inexorable  laws,  they  excluded  him  from  the  committee  formed  for 
reorganizing  the  Lcole  des  Beaux-Arts.  In  order  to  assert  his  supremacy  and 
put  a stop  to  the  spirit  opposing  itself  to  his  tenets,  David  requested  to  be  ap- 
pointed director  of  public  instruction  in  the  School  of  Painting  and  Sculpture. 
But  this  request  was  refused.  Mortified  by  the  rebuff  and  vexed  by  the  diffi- 
culty he  had  to  collect  the  payment  agreed  upon  for  his  great  canvases  of ‘ The 
Coronation’  and  ‘The  Distribution  of  the  Eagles,’  David  withdrew  to  a great 
extent  from  official  life. 

[09] 


28 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


He  now  turned  his  attention  to  finishing  a picture  begun  sometime  before 
— ‘Leonidas  at  Thermopylae’ — and  to  the  execution  of  several  portraits.  In 
the  midst  of  all  his  celebrity,  and  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  his  ambition 
and  his  love  of  power  were  boundless,  it  is  noteworthy  that  he  was  accustomed 
to  live  in  great  simplicity.  He  loved  music,  especially  Italian  music,  was  fond 
of  the  theater,  which  he  frequently  attended,  and  in  his  home  he  entertained 
his  friends  with  the  utmost  hospitality.  Always  quietly  but  elegantly  dressed, 
his  manner  was  marked  by  extreme  courtesy.  By  his  pupils  he  was  both  ven- 
erated and  loved.  Every  Sunday  morning  it  was  his  custom  to  receive  them 
in  his  home,  where  in  winter  he  was  to  be  found  beside  his  fire,  pipe  in  mouth, 
and  in  summer  in  his  garden,  where  he  had  erected  a monument  to  the  mem- 
ory of  his  favorite  pupil,  Drouais,  who  had  died  in  Rome. 

David’s  faith  in  the  fortune  of  Napoleon  was  so  firm  that  he  had  unhesi- 
tatingly accepted  whatever  favors  had  been  shown  him  by  the  emperor.  His 
elder  son  had  been  made  an  under  prefect  in  Hanover,  his  younger  son  was 
appointed  chief  of  a squadron  of  cuirassiers,  while  his  two  daughters  had  been 
married  to  officers  warmly  attached  to  the  imperial  cause.  While  that  cause 
was  all-powerful  in  France  everything  went  well  with  him  and  his  family,  but 
evil  days  were  at  hand  for  both  emperor  and  artist.  Napoleon’s  star,  so  long 
in  the  ascendant,  began  to  set,  and  on  the  approach  of  the  allied  armies, 
David  was  filled  with  apprehension  and  resolved  to  transport  many  of  his 
pictures — his  ‘Marat’  and  ‘ Lepelletier,’  his  ‘Coronation,’  ‘ Distribution  of  the 
Standards,’  portrait  of  Napoleon,  and  various  other  works — to  the  coast  of 
France,  where  they  were  carefully  hidden.  So  far  as  he  himself  was  concerned, 
however,  his  fears  proved  groundless.  The  restoration  of  the  Bourbons  left  him 
undisturbed,  and  on  Napoleon’s  return  from  Elba,  David,  among  the  first  to 
welcome  his  hero,  found  himself  again  in  favor  and  straightway  appointed 
Commander  of  the  Legion  of  Honor. 

Unfortunately,  during  the  “Hundred  Days”  which  constituted  Napoleon’s 
brief  return  to  power,  David  incautiously  placed  his  signature  to  the  “addi- 
tional articles”  excluding  the  Bourbons  from  the  throne  of  France,  thus  ex- 
posing himself,  in  the  event  of  Napoleon’s  downfall,  to  the  vengeance  of  the 
royalists.  This  downfall  quickly  followed.  Early  in  1 8 1 6,  when  Louis  xvm. 
had  been  reinstated  as  King  of  France,  a law  was  passed  sentencing  to  exile 
all  regicides  who  had  signed  the  “additional  acts.” 

It  is  said  that  had  David  humbled  himself  to  ask  it,  an  exception  to  this  de- 
cree would  have  been  made  in  his  favor,  in  view  of  his  services  to  art.  Twenty 
years  of  peaceful  existence  had  passed  since  the  stormy  period  of  the  Revo- 
lution, when,  as  a member  of  the  National  Convention,  he  had  voted  for  the 
death  of  Louis  xvi.,  and  twenty  years  had  wiped  out  all  remembrance  of  the 
part  he  had  taken  in  those  terrible  days — so  urged  his  friends;  but  David 
would  listen  to  no  such  counsel,  and,  bitter  as  exile  was  to  him,  said  farewell 
to  France.  His  request  that  he  might  be  allowed  to  go  to  Rome  was  refused, 
and  be  took  up  his  residence  in  Brussels.  There  he  found  many  friends,  and 
was  accorded  a warm  welcome  by  William  I.,  King  of  the  Netherlands,  whose 
government  testified  by  every  mark  of  consideration  and  regard  its  apprecia- 
te] 


DAVID 


29 


tion  of  the  honor  shown  it  by  the  great  painter  who  in  his  exile  had  selected 
Brussels  as  his  home.  And  David,  on  his  side,  gave  proof  of  the  value  he 
placed  upon  King  William’s  hospitality  by  declining  the  invitation  of  the  King 
of  Prussia  to  go  to  Berlin,  where  he  was  offered  the  directorship  of  the  Fine 
Arts,  as  well  as  higher  honors  and  greater  pecuniary  reward  than  had  been 
bestowed  upon  him  in  France  as  painter  to  Napoleon. 

In  Brussels  David  lived  peacefully  and  by  no  means  unhappily.  Flis  days 
were  spent  in  painting;  his  evenings  at  the  theater,  where  a special  seat  was 
reserved  for  him.  Friends  and  pupils  surrounded  him,  and  no  artist  from 
Paris  or  elsewhere,  and,  indeed,  no  stranger  of  note  passing  through  Brussels, 
failed  to  seek  the  honor  of  a visit  to  the  man  who  was  still  regarded  as  the  first 
painter  of  France. 

But  David  was  growing  old  and  his  hand  was  no  longer  so  steady,  nor  were 
his  eyes  so  strong,  as  in  former  years.  The  pictures  painted  at  this  period  — 
‘Love  leaving  Pysche,’  ‘The  Anger  of  Achilles,’  above  all  his  ‘Mars  disarmed 
by  Venus’ — show  a decided  diminution  of  his  powers. 

In  the  winter  of  1824-25  his  health  broke  dowm.  He  continued,  however, 
to  work,  but  was  interrupted  more  and  more  by  illness,  and  his  absence  from 
his  accustomed  seat  in  the  theater  became  more  and  more  frequent.  Towards 
the  close  of  the  year  a serious  affection  of  the  heart  prostrated  him.  When  the 
end  was  very  near,  a proof  of  an  engraving  of  his  ‘Leonidas’  was,  at  his  re- 
quest, brought  to  him  one  morning  for  correction,  and  as  he  lay  in  bed,  sup- 
ported by  his  attendants,  he  indicated  with  the  cane  which  had  been  placed 
in  his  hand  the  various  places  where  he  wished  changes  to  be  made.  “Too 
black  here,”  he  said  in  a voice  weakened  by  suffering,  “too  light  just  there. 
The  shading  in  this  part  is  not  well  defined.  . . . Here  the  touch  seems  un- 
certain . . . and  yet,” — the  words  became  scarcely  audible — “yet  it  is  the 
head  of  Leonidas.  ...”  The  voice  failed  altogether,  the  cane  fell  from  his 
hand,  and  he  breathed  his  last.  This  was  on  the  twenty-ninth  of  December, 
1825.  David  was  seventy-seven  years  old. 

His  funeral  was  solemnized  with  impressive  rites,  and  as  the  French  gov- 
ernment refused  the  earnest  request  of  his  family,  his  friends,  and  his  pupils 
that  his  body  should  be  allowed  to  rest  in  France,  he  was  buried  with  fitting 
honors  in  the  cemetery  of  Saint-Josse-ten-Noode,  Brussels. 


% fit  Art  of  Ba\uti 

JOHN  C.  VANDYKE  ‘HISTORY  OF  PAINTING' 

THE  classicism  of  David  was  a revival  of  Greek  form  in  art,  founded  on 
the  belief  expressed  by  Winckelmann,  that  beauty  lay  in  form,  and  was 
best  shown  by  the  ancient  Greeks.  It  was  the  objective  view  of  art  which  saw 
beauty  in  the  external,  and  tolerated  no  individuality  in  the  artist  except  that 
which  was  shown  in  technical  skill.  It  was  little  more  than  an  imitation  of  the 

[71] 


30 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


Greek  and  Roman  marbles  as  types,  with  insistence  upon  perfect  form,  correct 
drawing,  and  balanced  composition.  In  theme  and  spirit  it  was  pseudo-heroic, 
the  incidents  of  Greek  and  Roman  history  forming  the  chief  subjects,  and  in 
method  it  rather  despised  color,  light-and-shade,  and  natural  surroundings. 
It  was  elevated,  lofty,  ideal  in  aspiration,  but  coldly  unsympathetic  because 
lacking  in  contemporary  interest;  and,  though  correct  enough  in  classic  form, 
was  lacking  in  the  classic  spirit.  Like  all  reanimated  art,  it  was  derivative  as 
regards  its  forms  and  lacking  in  spontaneity.  The  reason  for  the  existence  of 
Greek  art  died  with  its  civilization,  and  those,  like  the  French  classicists,  who 
sought  to  revive  it  brought  a copy  of  the  past  into  the  present,  expecting  the 
world  to  accept  it. 

There  was  some  social,  and  perhaps  artistic,  reason,  however,  for  the  revival 
of  the  classic  in  the  French  art  of  the  eighteenth  century.  It  was  revolt,  and 
at  that  time  revolts  were  popular.  The  art  of  Boucher  and  Van  Loo  had  be- 
come quite  unbearable.  It  was  flippant,  careless,  licentious.  It  had  no  serious- 
ness or  dignity  about  it.  Moreover,  it  smacked  of  the  Bourbon  monarchy, 
which  people  had  come  to  hate.  Classicism  was  severe,  elevated,  respectable 
at  least,  and  had  the  air  of  the  heroic  republic  about  it.  It  was  a return  to  a 
sterner  view  of  life,  with  the  martial  spirit  behind  it  as  an  impetus,  and  it  had 
a great  vogue.  For  many  years  during  the  Revolution,  the  Consulate,  and  the 
•Empire,  classicism  was  accepted  by  the  sovereigns  and  the  Institute  of  France, 
and  to  this  day  it  lives  in  a modified  form  in  that  semi-classic  work  known  as 
academic  art. 

Vien  was  the  first  painter  to  protest  against  the  art  of  Boucher  and  Van  Loo 
by  advocating  more  nobility  of  form  and  a closer  study  of  nature.  Fie  lacked 
the  force  to  carry  out  a complete  reform  in  painting,  but  his  pupil  David  ac- 
complished what  he  had  begun.  It  was  David  who  established  the  reign  of 
classicism,  and  by  native  power  became  the  leader.  The  time  was  appropriate; 
the  Revolution  called  for  pictures  of  Romulus,  Brutus,  and  Achilles,  and 
Napoleon  encouraged  the  military  theme.  David  had  studied  the  marbles  at 
Rome,  and  he  used  them  largely  for  models,  reproducing  scenes  from  Greek 
and  Roman  life  in  an  elevated  and  sculpturesque  style,  with  much  archaeo- 
logical knowledge  and  a great  deal  of  skill.  In  color,  relief,  sentiment,  indi- 
viduality, his  painting  was  lacking.  Fie  despised  all  that.  The  rhythm  of  line, 
the  sweep  of  composed  groups,  the  heroic  subject  and  the  heroic  treatment 
made  up  his  art.  It  was  thoroughly  objective,  and  what  contemporary  interest 
it  possessed  lay  largely  in  the  martial  spirit  then  prevalent.  When  he  was 
called  upon  to  paint  Napoleonic  pictures  he  painted  them  under  protest,  and 
yet  these,  with  his  portraits,  constitute  his  best  work. 

RICHARD  MUTHER  ‘THE  HISTORY  OF  MODERN  PAINTING’ 

DAVID  was  one  of  those  rare  artists  who  are  the  men  of  their  hour.  To  a 
new  plebeian  race,  to  whose  feverishly  excited  patriotism  the  soft,  luxu- 
rious art  of  rococo  must  seem  as  a mockery  of  all  the  rights  of  men.  he  showed, 
for  the  first  time,  the  man,  the  hero,  who  died  for  an  idea  or  for  his  country. 
Lie  applied  art  to  the  heroism  of  the  day,  gave  it  the  martial  attitude  of  patriot- 

[72] 


DAVID 


31 


ism,  inspired  it  with  the  spirit  of  Robespierre,  St.  Just,  and  Danton.  The 
more  obtrusively  his  heroes  paraded  their  patriotism,  the  more  people  saw  in 
them  a picture  of  the  French  nation,  as  true  as  a transposition  could  hope  to 
be.  For  this  starched  rhetorical  pathos  lay  in  the  mind  of  the  age.  When 
David  painted,  the  state-declamations  of  the  orators  still  rang  in  his  ears. 
Robespierre  is  said  to  have  spoken  from  the  tribune  slowly,  rhythmically, 
artistically.  His  philippics  were  carefully  divided  into  three  sections,  like 
academic  discourses.  Patriotism  resolved  itself  into  tirades  and  correctly  im- 
posed periods.  To  that  corresponds  the  calm  composition  of  David’s  pictures. 
His  cold  pathos  is  the  counterpart  to  that  of  the  orators,  whose  fine  feelings 
were  expressed  in  fine  phrases. 

In  the  earnest  sentiment,  the  exalted  Roman  spirit,  the  declaiming  over 
rugged,  masculine  virtues,  freedom  and  patriotism,  that  found  expression  in 
David’s  first  pictures,  there  lived  something  of  the  Catonian  spirit  of  the 
Terror,  and  that  still  gives  them  historical  value  to-day.  His  enthusiasm  was 
not,  in  the  first  degree,  for  antique  art,  but  for  the  ideas  of  country,  duty,  free- 
dom, progress.  The  words  “antiquity”  and  “ democracy  ” were  of  like  mean- 
ing to  him. 

And  how  greatly  this  man  was  penetrated  by  the  spirit  of  his  age  is  shown 
still  more  when  he  discarded  Greek  and  Roman  tragedy,  and,  boldly  attacking 
the  present,  gave  himself  up  entirely  to  the  delineation  of  what  was  in  his  own 
life  and  experience,  and  his  direct  observation.  There  he  became  not  only  a 
rhetorician,  a revolutionary  agitator,  but  a really  great  painter.  Lepelletier  on 
his  death-bed,  and  the  assassinated  Marat,  are  works  of  a mighty  naturalist. 
His  portraits  of  the  emperor,  of  the  pope,  of  Cardinal  Caprara,  and  others, 
symbolize  the  brutal  greatness  of  an  age  which  worshiped  strength. 

In  his  portraits  he  is  neither  rhetorical  nor  cold,  but  full  of  fire  and  the 
freshness  of  youth.  Before  any  face  to  be  modeled  he  forgot  the  Greeks  and 
Romans,  saw  life  alone,  was  rejuvenated  in  the  youth-giving  fount  of  nature, 
and  painted — almost  alone  of  the  painters  of  his  generation — the  truth. 
Here  his  effect,  when  otherwise  he  was  lacking  in  all  naivete,  is  actually  naive 
and  intimate.  The  best  painters  have  never  treated  flesh  better.  He  had  an 
aversion  to  palette  tones,  and  sought  after  nature  with  unexampled  atten- 
tion. . . . 

When  many  of  his  portraits  were  reunited  at  the  Paris  Exhibition  of  1889, 
universal  astonishment  prevailed  when  it  was  discovered  what  a great  painter 
this  Louis  David  was.  He  appeared  in  these  pictures  as  an  artist  who  stood 
completely  within  his  age,  who  shared  its  passions  and  was  quite  penetrated 
by  its  greatness;  he  even  appeared  as  a painter  of  decided  charm,  who  handled 
the  phenomena  of  color  and  light  as  few  others  have  done.  Was  this  the  man 
who  had  painted  that  wearisome  ‘Belisarius’  and  that  still  more  wearisome 
‘ Leonidas  ’ ? 

David  showed  himself  in  this  favorable  light  at  the  Exhibition  only  because 
the  archaeological  side  of  his  talent  did  not  come  to  light.  Only  those  works 
had  been  produced  in  which  he  spoke  French  and  not  Latin,  did  not  seek 
to  resuscitate  the  antique,  but  painted  what  he  had  seen.  The  historian  dare 

[73] 


32 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


make  no  such  selection,  else  the  picture  of  David  would  be  incomplete.  He 
was  an  artist  with  a Janus  face,  a quite  peculiar  medley  of  contraries.  The 
works  which  we  saw  in  the  Exhibition  were  only  those  in  which  he,  in  a 
manner,  protested  against  his  own  system.  David  himself  would  have  put 
them  contemptuously  aside  as  “occasional”  pictures,  and  would  have  ex- 
hibited those  historical  canvases  through  which  he  exercised  an  unhealthy 
influence  on  the  further  development  of  French  painting.  He  was  at  heart 
as  archaeological  as  Mengs,  and  it  was  only  through  the  great  occurrences  of 
the  Revolution  and  the  Empire  that  he  was  brought  for  a certain  time  into 
contact  with  life.  . . . 

At  a time  when  France  had  begun  to  strive  after  political  freedom  art  was 
again  bowed  down  beneath  the  same  yoke  of  the  antique  as  it  had  been  at  the 
fullest  zenith  of  the  monarchy  under  Louis  xiv.  To  the  generation  of  1789 
that  was  entering  upon  life  with  fresh  hopes  and  fresh  passions  David  had 
nothing  to  offer  but  a borrowed  formula  of  the  past,  only  a sentiment  of  an- 
other long  buried  age,  whilst  the  Revolution  was  so  new  and  full  of  life.  He 
endeavored  to  persuade  these  men  who  stormed  the  Bastille  and  founded  a 
new  state,  that  the  truth  lay  in  archaism,  and  that  the  art  of  the  future  could 
be  founded  only  upon  classical  reminiscences. 

And  later,  the  more  he  lost  touch  with  public  life  and  found  time  to  indulge 
in  meditations,  the  deeper  he  fell  back  again  into  that  archaeological  current  as 
it  had  been  before  the  Revolution,  under  Vien.  Before  the  year  1800  France 
had  extricated  herself  from  the  antique  republican  views  which  had  introduced 
the  Revolution;  thus  David  had  to  decide  whether  he  should  belong  entirely 
to  modern  Paris  or  to  ancient  Rome.  He  chose  the  last,  and  the  spirit  which 
inspired  his  studio  grew  more  and  more  pedantic.  His  ‘Sabine  Women’  is 
the  most  complete  expression  of  this  barren  classicism.  . . . 

A paradoxical  man!  Endowed  with  wonderful  realistic  capacity,  and  there- 
fore created  to  enrich  his  country  with  masterpieces,  he  let  his  talent  lie  under 
the  spell  of  Roman  art  and  of  a barren  theory.  Against  all  the  caprice  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  with  its  charming,  alluring  grace,  he  opposed  a strict,  in- 
exorable system  as  he  believed  he  saw  it  in  the  antique.  Simplicity,  however, 
beneath  his  hands  became  dryness,  nobility  formal.  The  folk  of  yesterday, 
too,  had  laughed,  loved,  lived;  in  David’s  works  life  and  love  and  laughter 
were  banished.  It  was  as  though  an  archaeologist  had  discovered  some  mum- 
mies and  taken  them  to  be  the  actual  inhabitants  of  some  old  town.  He  saw 
in  painting  a sort  of  abstract  geometry  for  which  there  existed  hard  and  fast 
forms.  There  was  something  mathematical  in  his  effort  after  dry  correctness 
and  erudite  accuracy.  The  infinite  variety  of  life  with  its  eternal  changes 
was  hidden  from  his  sight.  The  beautiful,  he  taught  with  Winckelmann,  does 
not  exist  in  a single  individual;  it  is  possible  only  by  comparison  and  through 
composition  to  create  a type  of  it.  The  human  being  of  art  ought  always  to  be 
a copy  of  that  perfected  being,  of  that  primitive  man,  whom  the  Roman  sculp- 
tors had  before  their  eyes,  but  who  had  deteriorated  in  the  course  of  ages. 

Thus  in  France  the  sensuous  art  of  painting  was  converted  into  an  ab- 
stract science  of  esthetics.  The  classic  idea  weighed  upon  French  art  and  pre- 

[74] 


DAVID 


33 


scribed  for  all  alike  the  same  “heroic  style,”  the  same  elevation,  the  same 
marble  coldness  and  monotony  of  color.  . . . 

David  completed  his  ‘Sabine  Women’  in  the  year  1799.  It  was  the  legacy 
that  the  eighteenth  century  left  in  France  to  the  nineteenth,  the  century  on 
whose  threshold  that  tender  and  great  immortal,  Watteau,  had  stood,  which 
had  been  so  amiably  frivolous  with  Boucher,  had  nourished  itself  upon  virtue 
with  Greuze,  had  glorified  simple  domesticity  with  Chardin,  and  finally  echoed 
the  beautiful  phrases  of  young  David — liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity; — that 
century  so  tender,  witty,  fashionable,  dissolute  and  sane,  aristocratic  and  ple- 
beian, joyous  and  fanatical,  ended  in  France  in  the  most  barren  classicism. 

ANTONY  VALABRECUE  ‘LA  GRANDE  ENCYCLOf EDIE’ 

JACQUES-LOUIS  DAVID  is  one  of  those  painters  who  have  exercised  a 
most  decided  influence  upon  the  artistic  ideas  of  our  time,  as  well  as  upon 
the  destiny  of  the  whole  French  school.  Nowadays,  under  the  influence  of 
modern  standards  of  art,  he  is  variously  judged.  Both  lauded  and  denounced 
beyond  measure,  we  see  in  him  a strenuous  reformer,  an  autocratic  and  often 
brutal  regenerator.  His  passionate  nature  made  him  the  most  powerful  inter- 
preter of  the  French  Revolution.  By  some  he  is  looked  upon  as  one  of  the  in- 
stigators of  that  movement  in  art  which  left  its  mark  upon  a portion  of  the 
nineteenth  century;  by  others  he  is  regarded  simply  as  the  head  of  the  classic 
and  retrograde  school  of  painting  in  France.  It  is  but  right  that  he  should 
be  judged  by  us  from  the  standpoint  of  the  present,  apart  from  all  the  prej- 
udices of  the  past,  our  opinion  of  his  work  being  based  upon  a study  of  his 
great  canvases  in  the  galleries  of  France,  and  of  those  pictures  which  have 
appeared  from  time  to  time  in  exhibitions.  . . . 

Assuredly  a great  artist,  one  whose  ideals  were  of  the  highest,  whose  spirit 
was  noble  and  well  balanced,  who  was  indeed  an  apostle  of  the  beautiful 
such  as  he  conceived  it  to  be,  David  seems  to  us  opposed  to  certain  qualities 
peculiarly  French.  Advancing  with  unswerving  step  towards  his  goal,  he 
scorned  everything  in  the  way  of  grace  or  sentiment.  In  color  he  felt  no  in- 
terest, seeking  above  all  else  to  attain  exceeding  accuracy  in  drawing.  Be- 
neath an  apparent  perfection  his  work  presents  serious  faults.  Not  a single 
note  of  color  vibrates  in  his  too  uniform  compositions.  The  nude  is  treated  by 
him  as  if  he  were  a sculptor  rather  than  a painter.  Many  of  his  works  have 
for  their  subjects  scenes  from  classic  tragedies,  in  which  personages  are  ele- 
vated and  ennobled  by  an  ideal  at  once  human,  philosophic,  and  austere. 

For  our  part  we  infinitely  prefer  to  this  painter  of  history  preoccupied  with 
his  theories,  the  faithful  and  realistic  portrayer  of  his  own  times.  Alongside  of 
the  impassioned  artist, who, forceful  and  eloquent  as  heis, seems  now  to  beout 
of  date,  there  is  a calm,  serene  David,  an  observer  keen  and  conscientious. 
Such  is  the  man  who  painted  the  fine  portraits  of  Pope  Pius  Vi  1 .,  General 
Gerard,  and  Madame  Recamier.  Here  we  have  the  personal,  the  intimate 
side  of  David,  who  is  no  longer  the  lawgiver  of  art,  but  the  scrupulous  and 
expressive  searcher  after  truth  — in  a word,  the  lover  of  nature. 

A grand  figure  after  all,  that  of  this  artist  who,  although  no  longer  the  leader 

[75] 


34 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


of  the  French  school,  yet  offers  in  his  work  and  in  his  life  fruitful  lessons  full  of 
force.  The  cold  and  mediocre  style  of  certain  of  his  pupils  has  tended  to 
diminish  his  influence,  but  still  that  influence  could  never  have  been  lasting, 
for  like  that  of  every  absolute  master,  it  rested  upon  purely  individual  prin- 
ciples, which,  being  peculiar  to  himself,  were  for  that  very  reason  false. — 
FROM  THE  FRENCH 

LEON  ROSENTHAL  ‘LOUIS  DAVID’ 

DAVID  exercised  a powerful  influence  over  French  painting  for  the  reason 
that  towards  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  he  embodied  those  ration- 
alistic tendencies  of  the  French  mind  which  had  been  embodied  by  Poussin  in 
the  seventeenth.  He  brought  about  a prescribed  estheticism,  because  the 
theories  he  formulated  were  in  perfect  accord  with  the  instincts  of  his  country; 
he  gained  the  support  of  almost  all  the  artists,  and  created  a unanimity  of 
sentiment  such  as  no  other  artist  since  then  has  ever  succeeded  in  accomplish- 
ing, for  the  simple  reason  that  his  faults  as  well  as  his  excellences  were  intrin- 
sically French.  He  was  a painter  bound  by  codes  and  system;  a painter  by  no 
means  flawless,  it  may  be,  but  unquestionably  a French  painter. 

Poussin  could  never  have  been  said  to  have  comprised  within  himself  alone 
all  the  national  artistic  characteristics;  together  with  him  the  Clouets,  the 
Le  Nains,  the  Chardins  — painters  of  keen  and  close  observation  — must  also 
be  considered,  for  they  represent  an  important  characteristic  of  the  French 
mind  in  art — the  love  of  sincerity,  of  truth  to  nature.  But  in  this  respect 
we  find  David  actually  in  opposition  to  himself,  for  face  to  face  with  the 
painter  of  the  ‘Sabines’  stands  tbe  painter  of ‘Marat’  and  the  ‘Coronation;’ 
and  if  in  his  capacity  as  chief  of  the  French  school  he  inspires  in  us  to-day  only 
a historic  interest,  we  are  conscious  that  as  a realist  he  is  still  very  near  to  us. 

As  this  last  David  made  no  proselytes;  his  methods  in  this  direction  were 
embodied  in  no  formulae;  he  was  no  teacher.  But  if,  strictly  speaking,  he  had 
no  pupils  in  this  kind  of  art,  he  undoubtedly  forms  a link  between  those 
painters  of  truth  who  preceded  him  and  the  bolder  ones  who  followed.  In- 
deed, the  theorists  who  from  observation  of  nature  and  from  social  and  polit- 
ical conditions  deduce  general  laws,  might  well  lay  claim  to  David,  and,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  this  they  have  not  failed  to  do.  In  other  words,  those  who  ask 
that  an  artist  should  be  sincere  without  passion,  that  he  should  portray  life 
without  taking  part  in  it,  will  assign  a high  place  to  David  as  a portraitist; 
and  it  is  by  his  portraits  above  all  else  that  his  fame  has  been  definitely  estab- 
lished. Because  of  them  he  steps  forth  from  the  rank  of  artists  whose  works 
possess  interest  for  only  the  generation  which  enthusiastically  hailed  their  ad- 
vent, and  takes  his  place  among  those  whose  fame  is  recognized  by  posterity. 

The  historian  of  art  can  never  ignore  the  role  of  David,  leader  of  the  French 
school,  but  it  has  been  many  a long  day  since  the  painter’s  historical  works 
have  aroused  the  admiration  of  the  public  or  have  been  studied  by  artists. 
‘The  Coronation’  and  ‘The  Distribution  of  the  Standards’  belong  too  exclu- 
sively to  a particular  period  to  be  unreservedly  enjoyed;  even  ‘Marat,’  al- 
though more  detached  from  any  special  era,  still  belongs  to  the  time  when  it 

[76] 


DAVID 


35 


was  painted.  David’s  portraits,  on  the  contrary,  gain  more  and  more  admirers 
as  time  goes  on,  so  that  to-day  public  galleries  and  private  collections  vie  with 
each  other  to  obtain  them.  This  revival  of  favor  after  so  many  oscillations  and 
revolutions  of  public  taste  is  a sure  proof  of  David’s  enduring  fame. 

No  doubt  this  is  not  the  kind  of  fame  for  which  he  hoped.  Great  indeed 
would  have  been  his  astonishment  could  he  have  known  that  his  vast  historic 
compositions  would  sink  into  obscurity,  and  that  of  his  whole  achievement 
posterity  would  retain  only  those  works  which  he  painted  merely  as  pastime. 
His  pride  as  a painter  of  history  would  have  been  hurt;  but  we,  who  no  longer 
recognize  the  existence  of  any  kind  of  hierarchy  among  the  different  branches 
of  art,  but  acknowledge  simply  the  greater  superiority  of  genius,  maintain  that 
by  what  he  accomplished  his  fame  is  sufficiently  assured. 

From  David’s  strange  life  a lesson  can  be  learned.  He  was  inflexible  in  his 
formulae — formulae  now  as  dead  as  are  the  canvases  which  they  inspired;  but 
there  were  moments  when  he  asserted  his  independence,  and  it  is  because  of 
these  outbursts  of  his  free  inspiration  that  he  lives  to-day.  And  therefore  it  has 
come  to  pass  that  by  a striking  paradox  the  great  leader  of  the  French  school 
of  classicism  himself  proclaims  the  absurdity  of  formalism  and  system,  and 
throws  wide  open  to  art  the  doors  of  individuality  and  of  freedom. — from 
THE  FRENCH 


Cl >e  E>or{;o  of  Dalnti 

DESCRIPTIONS  OF  THE  PLATES 

‘BONAPARTE  CROSSING  MOUNT  ST.  BERNARD’  PLATE  I 

UPON  Napoleon’s  return  from  the  campaign  in  Italy  he  desired  David  to 
paint  his  portrait.  As  on  a previous  occasion,  however,  he  was  unwilling 
to  sit  for  the  artist,  averring  that  Alexander  had  never  posed  for  Apelles,  nor 
had  any  of  the  great  men  of  antiquity  sat  for  the  likenesses  we  possess  of  them; 
that  it  was  the  character,  the  soul,  which  should  be  portrayed,  rather  than  any 
exact  delineation  of  the  features.  And  David,  declaring  that  Napoleon  was 
teaching  him  the  art  of  painting,  agreed  to  execute  an  ideal  portrait  of  his  hero. 
“I  will  paint  you  in  battle,  sword  in  hand,”  he  said.  “No,  my  dear  David,” 
returned  Napoleon,  “it  is  not  with  the  sword  that  battles  are  won.  I would 
be  painted  calm  and  serene  upon  a fiery  steed.”  David  accordingly,  with  the 
assistance  of  his  pupil  Gerard,  painted  the  famous  picture  here  reproduced  of 
Bonaparte  crossing  the  icy  summit  of  Mount  St.  Bernard,  pointing  the  way 
across  the  snow-bound  Alps  to  Italy. 

“This  work,”  writes  M.  Leon  Rosenthal,  “has  a world-wide  reputation, 
but  it  is  cold  and  formal  in  composition,  the  attitude  is  strained  and  theatrical, 
and  the  figure  of  Napoleon  on  horseback  resembles  an  equestrian  statue  rather 
than  a painting.  I he  color  is  monotonous  and  uninteresting,  and,  finally,  the 

[77] 


36 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


evident  effort  to  impart  a symbolic  significance  to  the  work  is  unfortunate,  for 
the  idea  is  emphasized  to  such  a point  that  truth  is  completely  overlooked.” 
The  picture  is  one  of  David’s  works  to  which  he  himself  attached  the  great- 
est importance.  With  the  assistance  of  his  pupils  he  made  several  copies, 
which  he  frequently  retouched  with  the  utmost  care.  The  original  painting, 
reproduced  in  plate  I,  is  in  the  Palace  of  Versailles.  It  measures  eight  feet 
nine  inches  high  by  about  seven  and  a half  feet  wide. 

‘THE  OATH  OF  THE  HORATII’  PLATE  II 

DAVID’S  celebrated  picture  ‘The  Oath  of  the  Horatii,’  begun  in  Paris  in 
1783  and  finished  a year  afterwards,  during  his  second  sojourn  in  Rome, 
was  painted  by  order  of  the  king,  Louis  xvi.  The  subject  was  one  that  ap- 
pealed to  the  artist’s  love  of  classic  history  as  well  as  to  the  republican  spirit 
then  rife  in  France. 

The  scene  represents  the  three  Horatii,  brothers  belonging  to  one  of  the 
most  ancient  patrician  families  of  Rome,  receiving  from  their  father  weapons 
with  which  to  defend  their  country  against  the  threatened  supremacy  of  the 
land  of  Alba.  Even  as  they  had  been  chosen  to  represent  the  cause  of  Rome, 
so  had  that  of  Alba  been  intrusted  to  their  cousins  the  Curiatii,  three  brothers 
like  themselves,  whom  they  were  to  meet  in  deadly  combat. 

Now  it  happened  that  a sister  of  the  Horatii  was  betrothed  to  one  of  the 
Curiatii,  and  in  the  group  of  weeping  women  to  the  right  of  the  picture  David 
has  introduced  her  grief-stricken  form.  No  thought  of  their  sister’s  sorrow, 
however,  deterred  the  Ploratii  from  duty  to  their  country,  and  when  the  bloody 
fray  was  over,  and  the  sole  survivor,  one  of  the  Horatii,  had  returned  to  Rome 
in  triumph  with  his  threefold  spoils,  he  mercilessly  slew  his  sister  for  reproach- 
ing him  with  her  lover’s  death. 

First  exhibited  in  David’s  studio  in  Rome,  ‘The  Oath  of  the  Horatii’ 
created  a furore  of  enthusiasm  which  was  repeated  in  Paris  when  it  was  shown 
in  the  Salon  of  1785.  Although  possessed  of  some  fine  qualities,  the  picture 
strikes  us  to-day  as  theatrical  and  artificial.  As  in  all  David’s  works  of  this 
description,  coloring  counts  for  little  or  nothing;  all  stress  is  laid  upon  the 
drawing,  the  adherence  to  the  statuesque  in  emulation  of  antique  art,  and 
upon  the  loftiness  of  the  idea  expressed. 

The  picture  is  in  the  Louvre,  and  measures  nearly  eleven  feet  high  by  thir- 
teen feet  three  inches  wide. 

‘PORTRAIT  OF  MONSIEUR  SERIZIAT’  PLATE  III 

THIS  striking  portrait  in  the  Louvre  represents  David’s  brother-in-law, 
Monsieur  Seriziat,  in  riding-costume.  The  pose  is  admirably  chosen, 
the  manner  of  painting  vigorous,  and  the  colors  harmonious.  Monsieur  Seriziat 
is  seated  out-of-doors  on  a rocky  bank  upon  which  he  has  thrown  his  cloak  of 
greenish-blue  cloth.  His  coat  is  gray,  his  trousers  buff,  and  his  high  boots  are 
topped  with  tan-colored  leather.  His  hair  is  powdered,  and  he  wears  a dark 
gray  felt  hat.  The  background  is  blue  sky  diversified  with  white  clouds. 
“This  portrait  and  the  one  of  Madame  Seriziat,”  writes  M.  Frederic 

[78] 


DAVID 


37 


Masson,  “are  among  the  most  beautiful  ever  painted  by  David.  They  seem, 
indeed,  to  stamp  his  achievement  with  a renewal  of  freshness,  grace,  and  joy- 
ousness attributable  to  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were  executed, 
and  the  object  which  he  had  in  mind  in  painting  them.”  The  portraits  were 
painted  in  1795,  immediately  after  the  artist’s  term  of  imprisonment,  and 
when  he  was  spending  some  three  months  at  Saint-Ouen,  near  Tournan,  the 
country-seat  of  his  brother-in-law,  M.  Seriziat,  to  whose  efforts  his  liberation 
was  largely  due,  and  for  whom  David  painted  both  works  in  grateful  acknowl- 
edgment of  his  indebtedness. 

‘PORTRAIT  OF  MADAME  SFRIZIAT  AND  HER  CHILD’  PLATE  IV 

THIS  portrait  of  Madame  Seriziat,  who  before  her  marriage  was  Emilie 
Pecoul,  sister  to  David’s  wife,  was  painted  in  1795  as  a companion  pic- 
ture to  that  of  her  husband.  She  is  represented  seated  upon  a sofa  of  dull  red, 
dressed  in  a gown  of  creamy  white,  with  a green  ribbon  knotted  about  her 
waist.  Her  straw  hat  is  trimmed  with  ribbon  of  the  same  shade  of  green,  tied 
in  a bow  beneath  her  chin.  In  one  hand  she  holds  a bunch  of  wild  flowers, 
their  bright  hues  contrasting  with  the  white  of  her  skirt,  while  with  the  other 
hand  she  clasps  that  of  her  little  flaxen-haired  child,  who  turns  shyly  away  as 
it  looks  over  its  shoulder  at  the  spectator. 

Not  even  the  English  school  can  offer  a more  charming  example  of  portrait- 
ure than  this  picture  by  David.  Wholly  lacking  in  the  cold  pedantic  qualities 
of  his  historic  canvases,  it  is  full  of  life  and  naturalism.  There  is  nothing  stiff 
nor  unreal  in  the  composition,  the  modeling  is  admirable  in  its  delicacy,  and 
the  coloring  cool  and  harmonious. 

The  canvas  measures  about  four  feet  three  inches  high  by  three  feet  two 
inches  wide.  It  was  acquired  in  1902  by  the  Louvre,  where  it  now  hangs. 

'THE  SABINE  WOMEN”  PLATEV 

DAVID’S  famous  picture  in  the  Louvre  of  ‘The  Sabine  Women’  was 
painted  in  his  so-called  Greek  style.  The  subject,  it  is  said,  was  sug- 
gested by  a design  on  an  engraved  stone,  and  when  in  prison  in  1795  he  con- 
ceived the  idea  of  the  painting,  which  he  completed  four  years  later.  It  was 
exhibited  in  one  of  the  rooms  of  the  Louvre,  to  which,  contrary  to  all  precedent 
in  France,  an  admission  fee  was  charged. 

Its  fame  had  already  been  spread  abroad  by  the  artist’s  admiring  pupils,  and 
public  curiosity  was  aroused  by  the  knowledge  that  for  many  of  the  personages 
introduced,  well-known  men  and  celebrated  beauties  of  the  day  had  served 
as  models.  The  success  of  the  picture  was  immediate.  So  great  were  the 
crowds  that  flocked  to  visit  it  that  the  exhibition  was  kept  open  for  five  years, 
with  the  result  that  a sum  exceeding  72,000  francs  ($14,400)  was  realized. 
And  yet  the  ‘Sabine  Women’  provoked  much  adverse  criticism.  Fault  was 
found  principally  with  its  composition,  which,  it  was  justly  said,  lacked  unity, 
and  exception  was  taken  to  the  nudity  of  the  figures. 

The  scene  represents  that  moment  in  the  battle  between  the  Sabines  and 
the  Romans  when  the  wives  of  the  latter  rushed  into  the  fray  to  prevent  the 

[791 


38 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


slaughter  of  those  dear  to  them  in  both  the  opposing  armies  by  ties  of  blood* 
and  of  affection.  In  the  center  stands  Romulus,  aiming  his  spear  at  Titus 
Tatius,  King  of  the  Sabines,  who  at  the  left  of  the  picture  assumes  an  attitude 
of  defence.  Between  these  is  Hersilia,  the  wife  of  Romulus,  with  arms  out- 
spread, imploring  them  to  desist  from  the  combat.  About  this  central  group 
are  mothers  distracted  with  terror,  striving  to  protect  their  children,  some 
kneeling  in  supplication,  some  rushing  madly  among  the  warriors,  one,  beside 
herself  with  fright,  holding  her  child  aloft  in  her  arms.  The  background  is 
filled  with  the  two  armies.  On  the  left  are  the  ramparts  of  the  Roman  capitol, 
and  farther  off  is  seen  the  Tarpeian  rock. 

The  impression  of  this  picture  as  a whole  is  far  from  agreeable.  The  color 
is  cold,  the  attitudes  theatrical,  and  although  the  artist  evidently  intended  the 
scene  to  be  full  of  movement,  each  figure  is  treated  with  such  preoccupation 
for  nobility  of  form  and  attitude  that  the  general  effect  is  stiff  and  unreal. 
Some  of  the  details,  however,  possess  much  beauty.  Taken  separately,  the 
different  groups,  notably  the  one  in  the  center,  are  well  arranged,  and  the  indi- 
vidual figures  are  drawn  with  great  purity  and  beauty  of  line.  ‘The  Sabine 
Women’  admirably  illustrates  the  cold  classicism  of  David,  in  which  formulae 
were  followed  and  theories  adhered  to,  with  the  result  that  all  life,  spontaneity, 
and  naturalness  were  lost. 

‘PORTRAIT  OF  POPE  PIUS  VII’  PLATE  VI 

“ TN  David’s  portrait  of  Pope  Pius  vil.,”  writes  a French  critic,  “we  are  at 

1 once  struck  by  the  realism,  by  the  astonishing  force  of  expression,  which 
reveals  the  very  soul  itself  beneath  the  features  of  the  face,  by  the  superb  free- 
dom of  execution,  devoid  of  all  rigidity,  and  by  the  vigor  and  beauty  of  the 
coloring.” 

This  celebrated  portrait,  now  in  the  Louvre,  was  painted  in  1805,  when 
Pius  vil.  had  gone  to  Paris  for  the  purpose  of  crowning  Napoleon  Emperor  of 
France.  In  no  other  example  of  David’s  work  in  portraiture  do  we  more 
forcibly  feel  his  power  than  in  this  life-like  presentment  of  the  pope.  Clad  in 
a velvet  mantle  of  dull  red,  richly  trimmed  with  bands  of  gold  embroidery, 
Pius  VII.  is  seated  before  us  in  a chair  covered  with  red  and  gold.  The  back- 
ground is  a neutral  shade,  well  calculated  to  offset  the  figure  and  emphasize 
the  pale,  emaciated  face,  with  its  dark  eyes  and  fringe  of  dark  hair. 

Waagen  says  of  this  work,  “It  unites  dignity  and  truth  of  conception  with 
very  fine  drawing,  masterly  modeling,  and  a touch  which  is  broad  and  yet 
delicate  in  an  excellent  impasto.  No  one  of  David’s  historical  pictures  known 
to  me  can  assume,  in  its  own  class,  anything  like  the  same  rank  that  this  work 
properly  takes  in  its  character  of  a portrait.” 

‘MADAME  RECAMIER’  PLATE  VII 

ONE  of  David’s  most  charming  portraits  of  women  is  this  famous  unfin- 
ished picture  in  the  Louvre  of  Madame  Recamier,  the  celebrated  beauty 
and  leader  of  society  in  Paris  during  the  Consulate  and  the  Empire. 

[80] 


DAVID 


39 


Unlike  most  of  the  artist’s  works  in  portraiture,  in  which  as  a rule  the  sub- 
ject is  painted  in  so  natural  an  attitude  that  there  is  no  suggestion  of  a studied 
pose,  we  have  here  a more  carefully  arranged  composition.  Madame  Re- 
camier,  dressed  in  a white  gown  whose  long  folds  are  so  disposed  as  to  reveal 
her  bare  feet,  is  reclining  on  a couch  upon  cushions  of  pale  yellow  bordered 
with  delicate  grayish-blue.  The  pure  outlines  of  her  head  and  figure  are  clearly 
defined  against  the  plain  surface  of  the  background.  At  the  head  of  the  couch 
is  a tall  bronze  lamp,  the  only  ornament  introduced  into  the  apartment,  which 
is  severe  in  its  simplicity. 

David  was  engaged  upon  this  wTork  in  the  summer  of  1800,  his  pupil  Ingres, 
it  is  said,  assisting  him  with  the  accessories.  Before  it  was  completed  he 
learned  that  his  beautiful  model,  not  finding  the  picture  wholly  to  her  fancy, 
had  decided  to  sit  no  more  for  him,  but  had,  instead,  commissioned  Gerard, 
one  of  his  most  famous  pupils,  to  paint  her  portrait.  David’s  picture  was  ac- 
cordingly left  unfinished.  “In  admiring  this  masterly  sketch,”  writes  M. 
Charles  Saunier,  “so  complete  in  its  light  transparent  color,  we  ask  ourselves 
‘Was  it  not,  after  all,  just  as  well  that  David  carried  his  work  no  farther?’ 
We  are  inclined  to  think  so,  for  it  is  possible  that  some  of  its  delicate  beauty 
might  have  been  lost  had  he  put  the  finishing  touches  to  his  charming  study.” 
The  painting  measures  a little  over  five  and  a half  feet  high  by  nearly  eight 
feet  wide.  The  figure  is  life-sized. 

‘PORTRAIT  OF  THE  MARQUISE  D’  ORVILLIERS’  PLATE  VIII 

“'\T7’HEN  David  paints  young  women,”  writes  M.  Leon  Rosenthal, 
VV  “whether  they  be  attractive  because  of  their  beauty  or  their  grace, 
or  only  by  reason  of  the  charm  of  youth,  his  portraits  are  always  characterized 
by  an  ingenuousness  and  an  entire  freedom  from  affectation  which  straight- 
way captivate  the  fancy.  It  may  be  that  the  Marquise  d’Orvilhers,  and  various 
others,  have  not  features  that  are  absolutely  regular,  but  they  are  posed  with 
such  a happy  freedom  from  constraint,  they  seem  to  be  so  entirely  at  their  ease 
and  so  ready  to  engage  in  an  informal  conversation,  that  it  never  occurs  to  us 
to  find  fault  if  the  mouth  be  a trifle  large,  or  the  nose  not  strictly  in  accordance 
with  academic  rules.  We  feel  sure  that  they  must  have  enjoyed  posing,  for 
it  is  very  evident  that  David  enjoyed  painting  them.” 

The  charming  portrait  of  the  Marquise  d’Orvilliers,  here  reproduced,  was 
painted  in  1790.  The  canvas  measures  four  feet  four  inches  high  by  three  feet 
three  inches  wide,  and  is  owned  by  the  Comte  de  Turenne,  Paris. 

‘MICHEL  CERARD  AND  HIS  FAMILY*  PLAT  El  X 

IN  this  picture  we  have  a noteworthy  example  of  David’s  realism.  Nothing 
could  be  more  unlike  his  stilted  historical  compositions,  in  which  the  per- 
sonages are  posed  with  the  rigidity  of  statues,  than  this  life-like  group  now  in 
the  Museum  of  Le  Mans,  France.  The  principal  personage  is  Michel  Gerard, 
a Brittany  farmer,  who  in  the  days  of  the  F rench  Revolution  was  elected  a 
member  of  the  National  Convention.  For  the  honesty  and  integrity  of  his 

[81] 


40 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


character,  as  well  as  for  his  sound  common-sense,  “Father  Gerard,”  as  he  was 
called,  was  universally  respected.  He  always  wore  the  simple  dress  of  a Brit- 
tany peasant,  in  which  he  is  here  represented. 

1 he  picture  of  Michel  Gerard  and  his  family,”  writes  M.  Louis  Gonse, 
“is  remarkably  fine;  the  composition  is  compact  and  well  centered,  the  per- 
sonages being  so  skilfully  grouped  that  the  chief  figure,  the  sturdy  peasant  in 
his  shirt-sleeves,  is  given  all  due  prominence.  The  attitudes  and  actions  are 
varied,  expressive,  and  highly  characteristic.  The  whole  work  is  frankly 
painted  and  very  charming.” 

‘THE  CORONATION  OF  NAPOLEON  AND  JOSEPHINE’  PLATE  X 

THIS  celebrated  picture,  now  in  the  Louvre,  is  regarded  by  many  as 
David’s  masterpiece.  It  may  be  said  to  mark  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
French  painting.  Although  by  no  means  without  faults,  the  composition  as  a 
whole  is  stately,  the  grouping  of  the  principal  figures  admirable,  while  the 
coloring,  though  not  brilliant  and  now  somewhat  dimmed  by  time,  is  harmo- 
nious and,  in  parts,  rich  and  beautiful. 

The  coronation  of  Napoleon  and  Josephine  took  place  in  the  Cathedral  of 
Notre  Dame,  Paris,  on  December  2,  1804.  In  accordance  with  the  wish  of 
Napoleon,  David  has  represented  the  moment  when  the  emperor,  already 
crowned  by  Pope  Pius  vn.,  who  is  seated  behind  him,  is  about  to  place  the 
crown  upon  the  head  of  Josephine.  Clad  in  a white  robe  and  long  crimson 
mantle  lined  with  ermine  and  bordered  with  gold,  she  kneels  before  him.  He 
himself,  standing  with  upraised  arms  upon  the  steps  of  the  high  altar,  is  ar- 
, rayed  in  robes  of  state  and  wears  a laurel  wreath  upon  his  brow.  All  the  per- 
sonages present  are  portraits — the  prelates  grouped  about  the  pope,  the  dig- 
nitaries standing  at  the  right,  the  princesses  of  the  imperial  family  behind  the 
empress  and  her  attendants,  and  the  brothers  of  the  emperor  at  the  left. 
Back  of  the  central  group,  facing  the  spectator,  are  ranged  the  principal  per- 
sonages of  the  court,  and  in  a tribune  above  is  the  mother  of  the  emperor, 
who,  although  not  present  at  the  ceremony,  was  here  portrayed  at  Napoleon’s 
wish.  Still  higher  up  David  himself  is  introduced  sketching  the  scene. 

This  vast  painting,  which  measures  thirty-three  feet  long  and  twenty-one 
feet  high  and  contains  over  two  hundred  figures,  was  begun  in  1805  and  fin- 
ished three  years  later.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  artist’s  work  the  government 
placed  at  his  disposal  for  a studio  the  old  church  of  the  College  of  Cluny. 
There,  on  January  4,  1808,  Napoleon  went  in  state,  accompanied  by  the  em- 
press, his  ministry,  and  his  staff,  and  preceded  by  a body  of  cavalry  and  a 
band  of  music,  to  see  the  picture  which  had  just  been  completed.  For  more 
than  half  an  hour  he  walked  up  and  down  in  front  of  the  great  canvas,  exam- 
ining it  in  all  its  details.  David  and  his  assistants  stood  meanwhile  motionless 
and  silent,  anxiously  awaiting  his  verdict.  Finally,  his  eyes  still  fixed  upon  the 
picture,  he  paused.  “It  is  well  done,  David,”  he  said,  “very  well.  You  have 
divined  my  thoughts;  you  have  represented  me  as  the  embodiment  of  French 
chivalry.  I am  indebted  to  you  for  handing  down  to  posterity  this  proof  of 
affection  which  I have  desired  to  show  her  who  shares  with  me  the  cares  of 

[82] 


DAVID 


41 


government.”  And  then,  with  one  of  those  dramatic  effects  of  which  he  was 
so  fond,  he  advanced  towards  the  painter,  and,  raising  his  hat  and  slightly  in- 
clining his  head,  said  in  a loud  voice,  “David,  I salute  you!”  “Sire,”  replied 
David,  deeply  moved,  “I  receive  your  salutation  in  the  name  of  all  artists, 
happy  indeed  to  be  the  one  whom  you  deign  to  address.” 

The  picture  was  exhibited  in  the  Louvre  prior  to  the  opening  of  the  Salon 
of  1808,  and  met  with  an  immense  success.  As  a testimony  of  his  appreciation 
Napoleon  appointed  his  first  painter  an  officer  of  the  Legion  of  Honor. 

A LIST  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  PAINTINGS  BY  DAVID 
WITH  THEIR  PRESENT  LOCATIONS 

BELGIUM.  Antwerp,  Museum:  Head  of  an  Old  Man  — Brussels,  Museum:  Mars 
Unarmed  by  Venus;  The  Flute-player,  Devienne;  Marat;  A Boy  — FRANCE. 
Aix-en-Provence,  Museum:  A Young  Man  — Amiens,  Museum:  The  Comtesse  de 
Dillon  — Angers,  Museum:  Two  Studies  of  Drapery  — Avignon,  Museum:  Joseph 
Bara  — Cahors,  Verninac  Collection:  Mme.  de  Verninac — Calais,  Meunier  Col- 
lection: Mme.  David;  Baron  Meunier;  Baroness  Meunier — -Chalon-sur-Saone,  Chev- 
rier  Collection:  De  Blauw  — Cherbourg,  Museum:  Patroclus  — Dijon,  Museum: 
Mme.  Berber  and  her  Daughter — Douai,  Museum:  Mme.Tallien  — Fontainebleau, 
Palace:  Pope  Pius  vii.  (replica)  — Lille,  Museum:  Belisarius  asking  Alms;  Napo- 
leon; Apelles  painting  Campaspe  (sketch) — La  Mans,  Museum:  Michel  Gerard  and 
his  Family  (Plate  ix)  — Lyons,  Museum:  The  Huckster  — Marseilles,  Quarantine 
Office:  St.  Roch  interceding  with  the  Virgin  for  the  Plague-stricken — Montpellier, 
Museum:  Hector;  Alphonse  Lerny;  Head  of  a Young  Man;  M.  Joubert  — Nantes, 
Museum:  Death  of  Cleonice  (sketch)  — Narbonne,  Museum:  The  Good  Samaritan; 
David  and  Goliath;  Portrait;  Bacchante  and  Attendants  — Orleans,  Museum:  Mme. 
Calis — Paris,  Louvre:  Coronation  of  Napoleon  and  Josephine  (Plate  x);  Oath  of  the 
Horatii  (Plate  11);  Oath  of  the  Horatii  (Sketch);  Leonidas  at  Thermopylae;  The  Sabine 
Women  (Plate  v);  Lictors  bringing  to  Brutus  the  Bodies  of  his  Sons;  Belisarius  asking  Alms; 
Combat  of  Minerva  and  Mars;  Paris  and  Helen;  Three  Ladies  of  Ghent;  Pope  Pius  vii. 
(Plate  vi);  Mme.  Recamier  (Plate  vii);  M.  Pecoul;  Mme.  Pecoul;  Mme.  Chalgrin; 
M.  Seriziat  (Plate  111);  Mme.  Seriziat  and  her  Child  (Plate  iv);  M.  and  Mme.  Mongez; 
Bailly;  Portrait  of  David  (Page  22)  — Paris,  Ecole  des  Beaux-Arts:  Antiochus  — 
Paris,  Museum  of  the  Comedie  Franchise:  Mme.  Joly  — Paris,  Baron  Collec- 
tion: Sketch  for  the  Curtain  of  the  Chantereine  Theater — Paris,  Bianchi  Collection: 
The  Death  of  Socrates  — Paris,  De  Chazelles  Collection:  Lavoisier  and  his  Wife — 
Paris,  Didot  Collection:  Telemachus  and  Eucharis;  The  Anger  of  Achilles — Paris, 
Durand-Ruel  Collection : Marat  (replica)  — Paris,  Feuardent  Collection:  Coro- 
nation of  Napoleon  and  Josephine  (replica) — Paris,  Jeaunin  Collection:  Meyer,  Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary;  Baron  Jeaunin;  Baroness  Jeaunin;  Charles  Jeaunin  — Paris,  De 
Turenne  Collection:  The  Marquise  d'Orvilliers  (Plate  vm);  The  Comte  de  Turcnne 
— Paris,  De  ViLLEquiER  Collection:  The  Marquis  de  Sorcy  de  Thelusson — Rheims, 
Museum:  Marat  (replica)  — Rouf.n,  Museum:  Portrait,  said  to  be  of  Mine.  Vigee  Le 
Brun  — Semur,  Museum:  Head  of  an  Old  Man — Toulon,  Museum:  The  Daughters 
of  Joseph  Bonaparte  — Valence,  Museum:  Ugolino — Versailles,  Palace:  Barere; 
Bonaparte  crossing  Mount  St.  Bernard(Plate  1);  The  Distribution  of  the  Standards;  Pope 
Pius  vii.  (replica)  — GERMANY.  Berlin  Gallery:  Bonaparte  crossing  Mount  St. 
Bernard  (replica)  — IRELAND.  Dublin,  National  Gallery  of  Ireland:  Death  of 
Milo — RUSSIA.  St.  Petersburg,  Collection  of  Prince  Youssoupoff:  Sapho  and 
Phaon  — Villanov,  near  Varsovie,  Chateau  Potocki:  Count  Potocki. 


[83] 


42 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


2Ba\uti  33tl)ltogiapl)P 


A LIST  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  BOOKS  AND  MAGAZINE  ARTICLES 
DEALING  WITH  DAVID 

ALEXANDRE,  A.  Histoire  populaire  de  la  peinture:  ecole  frangaise.  Paris  [1893]  — 
Benoit,  F.  L’Art  frangais  sous  la  Revolution  et  l’Empire.  Paris,  1897 — Ber- 
trand, L.  La  Fin  du  classicisme  et  le  retour  a P antique.  Paris,  1897  — Blanc,  C. 
Histoire  des  peintres  de  toutes  les  ecoles:  ecole  frangaise.  Paris,  1865  — Breton,  J.  Nos 
peintres  du  siecle.  Paris  [1899]  — Brownell,  W.  C.  French  Art.  New  York,  1901  — 
Brun,  C.  Louis  David  und  die  franzosische  Revolution.  Zurich,  1886  — Chesneau,  E. 
La  Peinture  frangaise  au  XIXC  siecle.  Paris,  1862  — Chesneau,  E.  Les  Chefs  d’ecole. 
Paris,  1864  — Cook,  C.  Art  and  Artists  of  Our  Time.  New  York  [1888]  — Coupin, 
P.  A.  Essai  sur  J.  L.  David.  Paris,  1 827 — David, 'J.  L.  J.  Le  Peintre  Louis  David. 
Paris,  1879  — Delaborde,  H.  Etudes  sur  les  Beaux- Arts.  Paris,  1864  — Delecluze, 
E.  J.  Louis  David,  son  ecole  et  son  temps.  Paris,  1855 — Gautier,  T.  Guide  de 
Pamateur  au  Musee  du  Louvre.  Paris,  1882  — Hamerton,  P.  G.  Contemporary  French 
Painters.  London,  1868  — Head,  Sir  E.  A Handbook  of  the  History  of  the  Spanish  and 
French  Schools  of  Painting.  London,  1 848  — Houssaye,  A.  La  Revolution.  Paris, 
1890  — Jal,  A.  Dictionnaire  critique  de  biographie  et  d’histoire.  Paris,  1872  — 
Kingsley,  R.  G.  A History  of  French  Art.  London,  1899  — Larousse,  P.  A.  David 
(in  Grand  Dictionnaire  Universel).  Paris,  1866-90  — Lenoir,  A.  David,  souvenirs  his- 
toriques.  Paris, 1835  — Marx,  R.  Etudes  sur  P ecole  frangaise.  Paris, 1903  — Merson,  L. 
La  Peinture  frangaise  au  XVIIe  siecle  et  au  XVIIIe.  Paris  [1900] — Michel,  A.  Les 
Chefs-d' oeuvres  de  Part  frangais  au  XIXe  siecle.  Paris,  1890  — Miel,  M.  Notice  sur 
J.  L.  David.  Paris,  1834 — Muther,  R.  The  History  of  Modern  Painting.  London, 
1 895 — Muther,  R.  Ein  Jahrhundert  franzosischer  Malerei.  Berlin,  1901  — Parisot,  A. 
David  (in  Michaud’s  Biographie  universelle).  Paris,  i843-[i865] — Pinset,  R.,  and 
d’Auriac,  J.  Histoire  du  portrait  en  France.  Paris,  1884  — Regnet,  C.  A.  Jacques 
Louis  David  (in  Dohme’s  Kunst  und  Kiinstler,  etc  ).  Leipsic,  1880  — Rosenthal,  L. 
Louis  David.  Paris  [1905]  — Saunier,  C.  Louis  David.  Paris  [1904J — Springer,  A. 
Die  Kunst  wahrend  der  franzosische  Revolution.  Bonn,  1886  — Stranahan,  C.  H.  A 
History  of  French  Painting.  New  York,  1888 — Thibaudeau,  A.  La  Vie  de  David. 
Paris,  1826  — Thiers,  A.  La  Vie  de  David.  Paris,  1826 — Thore,  T.  Les  Peintres 
du  XIXe  siecle;  Louis  David.  Brussels,  1843 — Valabregue,  A.  Jacques-Louis  David 
(in  La  Grande  Encyclopedic).  Paris,  1886-1902  — Villars,  M.  de.  Memoires  de  David. 
Paris,  1850 — Wyzewa,  T.  de,  and  Perreau,  X.  Les  Grands  peintres  de  la  France. 
Paris,  1890. 


^RT,  1899:  A.  Hustin;  Exposition  Universelle  de  1889.  Les  Peintres  du  cente- 


naire  — Les  Arts,  1902:  F.  Masson;  Les  Accroissements  des  Musees.  Deux  por- 
traits par  Louis  David.  1903:  Un  portrait  de  Louis  David  — Athenteum,  1857:  Louis 
David,  his  School  and  his  Times  — Bentley’s  Miscellany,  1886:  Louis  David  — Ga- 
zette des  Beaux-Arts,  i860:  A.  Cantaloube;  Les  Dessins  de  Louis  David.  1880: 
L.  Gonse;  Review  of  ‘Le  Peintre  Louis  David,’  par  J.-L.  David,  son  petit-fils.  1900: 
A.  Michel;  La  Peinture  frangaise  a 1’ exposition  centennale.  1902:  C.  Saunier;  Un  dessin 
inconnu  de  la  ‘Distribution  des  Aigles’  de  Louis  David.  1903:  J.  Guiffrey;  David  et  le 
theatre  pendant  le  sejour  a Bruxelles.  1905:  C.  Saunier;  La  Mort  de  Seneque  par  Louis 
David  — Gentleman’s  Magazine,  1856:  Louis  David,  the  French  Painter — Nation, 
1904:  A.  Laugel;  Review  of  Rosenthal’s  ‘David’  — Revue  des  Deux-mondes,  1896: 
J.  Michelet;  David  et  Gericault  — Revue  Generale,  1881:  G.  Nieter;  Le  Peintre 
David  — Westminster  Review,  1855:  Review  of  Delecluze's  ‘Louis  David.’ 


magazine  articles 


[84] 


Every  woman  of  good  taste  and  fine  feelings  demands  a letter  paper  which  shall 
represent  her  upon  which  to  express  her  real  thoughts  to  her  friends.  No  woman 
of  fineness  can  write  well  upon  paper  that  is  coarse,  common  or  cheap  looking. 


Eaton-Hurlbut  Writing  Papers 


are  the  best  that  are  made,  and  three  brands  for  particular  women  are — Berkshire 
Linen  Fabric,  Highland  and  Twotone  Linens,  with  their  wide  range  of  color,  size 
and  surface  to  suit  the  individual;  they  are  the  recognized  standard  of  elegance. 


If  you  know  a dealer  who  does 
not  carry  these  papers,  send  us 
his  name,  and  get  our  desk  book, 
"The  Gentle  Art  of  l.ctter 
Writing,"  in  return. 


EATON-HURLBUT 
PAPER  CO. 


P itts  k i e l.  d , Mass. 


MASTERS  I N ART 


MASTERS  IN  ART 

BACK  NUMBERS  AND  BOUND  VOLUMES 


71  /RASTERS  IN  ARrT  was  established  in  January,  1900.  As  will  be 
A VA.  seen  from  the  following  list  of  painters  and  sculptors  covered  by  the 
first  six  years,  the  bound  volumes  form  a fairly  complete  reference  library  of 


The  Cloth  landing  is  a brown  art  buckram,  with  heavy  bevelled  boards,  side  and 
back  stamps  in  frosted  and  burnished  gold,  from  designs  by  Mr.  B.  G.  Goodhue,  and 
gilt  top. 

The  Half-Morocco  Binding  is  in  green,  with  green  and  gold  marbled  paper  sides 
and  end  papers,  gold  tooled  back  designed  by  Mr.  B.  G.  Goodhue,  and  gilt  top. 

In  both  styles  of  binding  the  forwarding  is  most  thoroughly  done,  the  front  and 
bottom  edges  are  untrimmed. 

PRICES 


Art.  The  subjects,  in  the  order  of  publication,  are  as  follows: 


All  single  numbers,  except  those  of  the  current  calendar  year,  are  20 
cents  each,  postpaid,  in  the  United  States,  Canada,  and  Mexico;  25 
cents  each,  postpaid,  to  foreign  countries  in  the  postal  union.  Single 
numbers  of  the  current  year  are  15  cents.  No  reduction  when  yearly  vol- 
umes or  complete  sets  are  ordered. 


Half- 
Morocco 
Binding 


Volume  I (1900)  treats  of  Van  Dyck,  Titian,  Velasquez,  Holbein, 
Botticelli,  Rembrandt,  Reynolds,  Millet,  Giov.  Bellini,  Murillo,  Hals,  and 
Raphael. 

Volume  II  (igoi)  treats  of  Rubens,  Da  Vinci,  Diirer,  Michelangelo 
(Sculpture),  Michelangelo  (Painting),  Corot,  Burne-Jones,  Ter  Borch, 
Della  Robbia,  Del  Sarto,  Gainsborough,  and  Correggio. 

Volume  III  (1902)  treats  of  Phidias,  Perugino,  Holbein,  Tintoretto, 
Pieter  De  Hooch,  Nattier,  Paul  Potter,  Giotto,  Praxiteles,  Hogarth,  Tur- 
ner, and  Luini. 


Cloth  Binding 


Volume  IV  (1903)  treats  of  Romney,  Fra  Angelico,  Watteau,  Ra- 
phael’s Frescos,  Donatello,  Gerard  Dou,  Carpaccio,  Rosa  Bonheur,  Guido 
Reni,  Puvis  De  Chavannes,  Giorgione,  and  Rossetti. 

Volume  V (1904)  treats  of  Fra 
Bartolommeo,  Greuze,  Diirer’s  En- 
gravings, Lotto,  Landseer,  Vermeer  of 
Delft,  Pintoricchio,  The  Brothers  Van 
Eyck,  Meissonier,  Barye,  Veronese, 
and  Copley. 


Volume  VI  (1905)  treats  of  Watts, 
Palma  V ecchio,  Madame  Vigee  Le 
Brun,  Mantegna,  Chardin,  Benozzo 
Gozzoli,  Jan  Steen,  Memling,  Claude 
Lorrain,  Verrocchio,  Raeburn,  Fra 
Filippo  Lippi. 


Bound  volumes  are  $3. 75  each  for  cloth,  $4.25  each  for  half-morocco,  express  prepaid.  Terms 
for  purchasing  the  complete  set  on  small  monthly  payments  will  be  sent  on  request. 


BATES  GUILD  COMPANY,  PUBLISHERS 

42  CHAUNCT  STREET,  BOSTON,  MASSACHUSETTS 


In  answering  advertisements,  please  mention  Masters  in  Art 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


Interpretation  of 

iiapijacrs 

i jo  m s 


By 

Mrs.  Adeliza  Brainerd  Chaffee 

Second  Edition,  Illustrated,  .paper  covers,  by 
mail,  50  cents. 


A limited  edition  of  two  hundred  and 
fifty  numbered  copies,  hand  illumined, 
nineteen  illustrations,  beautifully  bound, 
in  a box,  $to.oo 


Recent  additions  to  the  Raphael  Prints 
from  original  views  in  Spain,  Sicily,  and 
Switzerland.  Address, 

Cl n Ctjaffee  Irautito 

1 HANCOCK  STREET 
WORCESTER,  MASS. 


The  GREAT  PICTURE  LIGHT 

FRINK’S  PORTABLE 

PICTURE  REFLECTORS 


For  electric  light,  meetall  requirements 
for  lighting  pictures.  Every  owner  of 
fine  paintings  could  use  one  or  more  of 
these  portable  reflectors  to  advantage. 
The  fact  that  so  many  have  ordered 
these  outfits  for  their  friends  is  proof 
that  their  merits  are  appreciated. 
Height,  closed,  51  inches;  extended,  81 
inches.  The  light  from  the  reflector  can 
be  directed  at  any  picture  in  the  room 
and  at  any  angle. 


Frink’s  Portable  PictureReflector 
with  Telescope  Standard 

No.  7034,  brass,  polished  or  antique, 
with  plug  and  socket  for  electric 
lamp  ....  ...  $27.50 

No.  7035,  black  iron,  with  plug  and 
socket  for  electric  lamp  . . $16.50 


These  special  Reflectors  are  used  by 
all  the  picture-dealers  in  New  York,  and 
by  private  collectors  not  only  in  this 
country,  but  in  Paris,  London,  Berlin, 
and  other  cities.  When  ordering,  kindly 
mention  the  system  of  electricity  used. 
Satisfaction  guaranteed.  Parties  order- 
ing these  Reflectors  need  not  hesitate 
Nos.  7034,  7035  to  return  them  at  our  expense  if  not 
Pat.  Dec.  14,  ’g7  found  satisfactory. 

I.  P.  FRINK,  551  Pearl  St.,  New  York  City 

GEO.  FRINK  c fcFNCER,  Manager 
Telephor.  |sT6o  Franklin 


BRAUN’S 

CARBON 

PRINTS 


FINEST  AND  MOST  DURABLE 
IMPORTED  WORKS  OF  ART 


NE  HUNDRED  THOUSAND  direct 
reproductions  from  the  original  paintings 
and  drawings  by  old  and  modern  masters  in  the 
galleries  of  Amsterdam,  Antwerp,  Berlin,  Dres- 
den, Florence,  Haarlem,  Hague,  Lor  ' ■>  Ma- 
drid, Milan,  Paris,  St.  Pctersb-  tome, 
Venice,  Vienna,  Windsor,  and  c 

Special  Terms  to  Schi 


BRAUN,  CLEMENT  ^ CO. 

256  Fifth  Avenue,  corner  28th  Street 
NEW  YORK  CITY 


Are  You  Building  a 

COUNTRY  HOUSE 

Or  Do  Y ou  Own  One  ? 


In  cither  case  the  following  books  will  Interest  you. 

AMERICAN"  COUNTRY  HOUSES 

Comprising  the  material  gathered  for  a recent  special  num- 
ber of ‘THE  ARCHITECTURAL  REVIEW  — the  leading 
architectural  paper  of  America— and  showing,  by  326  pho- 
tographic Illustrations  and  plans,  the  exteriors  and  interiors 
of  tlie  best  country  houses  of  moderate  cost  built  In  this 
country  during  the  last  few  years  by  architects  of  the  high- 
est standing.  With  ftill  descriptive  text.  Price,  bound, 
$3.00,  postpaid. 

S T ABLES 

A work  of  similar  character  to  the  nbovo,  showing  by  over 
650  Illustrations  the  exteriors,  plans, and  Interiors  of  stables 
of  every  size  and  arrangement,  with  articles  by  exports  on 
stable  planning,  construction,  hygiene,  farm  buildings,  etc. 
Price,  hound,  $3.00,  postpaid. 

AMERICAN  GARDENS 

The  only  volume  existing  which  shows  what  Is  possible  In 
garden-making  under  American  conditions  of  cllmute  ami 
environment.  Illustrates,  by  'I'll  superb  nhotographs,  sixty  - 
one  of  the  loveliest  American  gardens,  old  and  new.  Plans 
are  given,  and  the  preface  treats  of  the  principles  of  garden 
design.  Price,  $7.50,  express  paid. 


Special  ilhutrated  aw/  deAcrintire  circular * concerning 
each  of  the  above  bool a on  appliculion . 


Bates  & Guild  Company 

I*  U It  LIS  If  K It  S 

412  Ciiauncy  ST.,  Boston,  Mass. 


Tti  answering  advertisements,  please  mention  Masters  I M Akt 


MASTERS  IN  ART 


Wanted  ! — Capable  Solicitors 

TO  SECURE  SUBSCRIPTIONS  AND  ORDERS  FOR  BACK  VOLUMES  OF 

^Has'tns  in  3rt 


WF  vant  only  those  who  will  devote  time  and  energy 
to  the  work,  and  preferably  those  possessing  enough 
knowledge  of  the  great  painters  to  talk  intelligently  about  the 
pub’  tion.  To  the  right  persons  we  will  make  liberal  offers 
and  territory.  Write,  stating  qualifications  and  giving 


re 


Bates  l G tld  Co.,  42  Chauncy  St.,  Boston 


THE  SFI  AL  WINTER  NUMBER  OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL  STUDIO 


THE  1ANSIONS  OF  EN  JLAND  IN  THE 
CLDEN  TIME.  Joseph  Nash 


THIS  WORK  is  probably  the  most  valuable  and  interesting  work  which  has  ever  appeared  upon 
English  architecture.  It  is  valuable  to  the  student  of  architecture  on  account  of  the  elaborate  de- 
tail which  Mr.  Nash  so  carefully  introduced  into  his  drawings;  it  is  valuable  to  the  decorator 
and  designer  of  furniture,  because  of  the  beautiful  examples  shown  in  the  interiors;  it  is  valuable  to  the 
general  art-loving  public,  not  only  on  account  of  its  man1  lggestions  for  the  arrangement  of  rooms, 
but  also  by  reason  of  the  beauty  of  the  drawings  them 
Dealing,  as  it  does,  with  the  most  perfect  form 
value  of  the  book  as  a work  of  reference  is  unparallel 
its  preparation,  was  a consummate  draughtsman  and  r 
inal  edition  of  the  work  now  commands  is  in  itself  a 
reproductions  (although  reduced  in  size)  of  each  of  the 
appeared  in  four  folio  volumes  at  intervals  from  1839 
inal  edition,  in  two  printings. 

An  introductory  chapter  will  be  contributed  by 


ture  in  the  past,  the 
spent  many  years  in 
price  which  the  orig- 
sic  value.  Facsimile 
riginal  edition,  which 
ere  those  of  the  orig 

F.R.I.B.  A. 


PRICE:  In  Paper  Cover,  $1 
In  Cloth,  $3.00  net 


its 


JOHN  LANE  COM 

The  Bodley  Head  v 


V YORK 

o ^ i nth  Avenue 


6 5 4 43 


. - In  answering  adverti  mts, 


iasters  in  Art 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY  MAIN 

nsuesns  ar, 

c 1 
Ocvld 


3 3125  00157  7150 


